The assault on critical thinking on university campuses

Date Put forth on May 14, 2007 by XicanoPwr
Category Posted in Free Speech, News/Noticias, Política Estados Unidos, Ward Churchill, democracy


Freedom of speech is one of the most basic rights that individuals enjoy and one that is taken granted. It is vital to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most vulnerable rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one’s discontent with the status quo with the desire to change it. In our post-9/11 world, it is one of the most threatened rights; where the government is relying on fear and demonization to curtail this right and to pacify a nervous, poorly informed, and confused citizenry at home. Academic free speech and the First Amendment once are under intense fire in the midst of a political and mass media witch hunt on Ward Churchill, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Last Tuesday, University of Colorado President and former US Senator Hank Brown received a report from a faculty committee regarding its hearing on alleged research misconduct by Professor Churchill. According to University spokeswoman Michele McKinney, Brown has 15 business days to determine how to proceed - whether are no grounds for dismissal or recommend sanctions such as suspension. There are still many more steps in the process if Brown recommends dismissal.

The relentless pursuit of Professor Churchill is a manifestation of this country’s new form of McCarthyism, which has serious implications on academic freedom and free speech in the US. Churchill has been singled out by the ultra-right, with the assistance of Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. The controversy erupted shortly after Churchill was invited to participate on a panel at Hamilton College for an essay “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” he wrote soon after the events of 9/11 came to light.

The passage that has caused the greatest controversy concerned the innocence of some of the victims died in the World Trade Center attacks. Churchill accused some of victims were “technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire” and “little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers.” Whether Churchill’s statement is viewed flawed and reactionary, this does not mean, this grants the ultra-right the right to exploit the controversy in an attempt to advance their ongoing Culture Wars by seeking to demolish free speech rights, liberal and left values, and the academic tenure system, which in their view protects crazed radicals corrupting the minds of youth.

The Right launched a series of attacks on his character and ethnic background, to distort his intention and meaning, and to demand that he be fired from a tenured position designed to protect academics from ideological persecution. Conservative politicians and media pundits demonized Churchill as a “madman” and “cheerleader for terrorists” who spews vile “hate speech” tantamount to treason. Right-wing pundits like Bill O’Reilly, among others urging their listeners to flood Hamilton College, the University of Colorado, and Colorado politicians with letters of complaint demanding that Churchill be fired.

Reaction to Churchill’s views was swift and predictable at the state capitol. Colorado Governor Bill Owens declared, “all decent people … should denounce the views of Ward Churchill” since they “are at odds with simple decency.” He later demanded that he be fired from his tenure. The Colorado House of Representatives released a Joint Resolution in support of the 9/11 victims’ families and vilified Churchill for striking “an evil and inflammatory blow against America’s healing process.”

Within the Colorado university community, reaction was mixed. The reaction from the university’s administration was more controlled. The Chancellor Phil DiStefano, stated that even though Churchill’s statements was “offensive,” and that his the essay had “outraged and appalled us and the general public;” the chancellor held that Churchill had the right to “hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

The Colorado administration suddenly decided to begin a 30-day inquiry into “Professor Churchill’s writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works.” The special panel was to look into two issues: whether Churchill’s actions “including his speech, provide any grounds for dismissal for cause” and “if so, is this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against University action?”

The report concluded that the First Amendment protected Churchill’s essay and that he could not be dismissed for making such statements. However, the panel determined that there were concerns regarding “standards of professional integrity,” including charges of possible “research misconduct.” The question that should have been asked, if Professor Churchill’s scholarship were an issue, wouldn’t they have discovered all this during his tenure review or during his promotion to Chair of his department, which he later resigned because of the controversy.

Make no mistake, these attacks are politically timed and motivated by the right wing to dismantle the freedom of speech on university campuses nationwide. It is spearheaded in large part by David Horowitz and his David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly known as Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and Frontpagemag.com, and the Association of College Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). Horowitz’s is under the impression that the current political make-up on American universities is predominately left leaning. While many may see Horowitz as kook and a windbag, the fact is, that is his modus operandi.

Horowitz works closely with Karl Rove and other top national Republican leaders, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. He has singled out professors for intellectual ridicule and political vilification. Mastering in the art of rhetoric and spin, he has been on a campaign promoting his “Academic Bill of Rights,” - the Orwellian version of valuing intellectual diversity among faculty and protecting students whose political views differ with their professors.

Aiding Horowitz in the attack on critical thinking is ACTA, the Washington-based conservative academic “watch-dog” group which released a report last year titled “How Many Ward Churchills?” attacking “undergraduate liberal arts curriculum as it exists on America’s campuses today.” ACTA was founded by Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, and Sen Joe Lieberman in 1995.

After 9/11, ACTA established the Defense of Civilization Fund to support the study of American history and civics and of Western civilization. The Funds first project was the notorious report written in 2001 “Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America,” which asserted that “colleges and university faculty have been the weak link in America’s response to the attack” and to fight this weakness American history and Western civilization must be reinstituted and expanded in our colleges.

The fact remains that academe is the only sector of American society that is distinctly divided in its response. Indeed, expressions of pervasive moral relativism are a staple of academic life in this country and an apparent symptom of an educational system which has increasingly suggested that Western civilization is the primary source of the world’s ills - even though it gave us the ideals of democracy, human rights, individual liberty, and mutual tolerance. (page 5)

We believe that the West will fight for its own survival. But only if we know what we are fighting for. … We call upon all colleges and universities to adopt strong core curricula that include rigorous, broad-based courses on the great works of Western civilization as well as courses on American history, America’s Founding documents, and America’s continuing struggle to extend and defend the principles on which it was founded. If institutions fail to do so, alumni should protest, donors should fund new programs, and trustees should demand action. (page 7)

This is disturbing parallel between what is happening in academia now and the educational scenario of Germany during the Nazi build-up and consolidation of power. After Hitler came to power in 1933, political resistance was crushed. Dissent was to be silenced; professions like law and institutions that might challenge the new regime were to be subdued and recast. Eventually, the Nazi Party dominated the teaching profession by dictating who entered it and who got promoted. By the 1940s, the Nazis had a completely compliant cadre of teachers and professors.

When CU President Elizabeth Hoffman made comments suggesting that a McCarthyite atmosphere was being fanned in connection with the Churchill case, she was pressured to resign and was succeeded by one Hank Brown, who is coincidentally a co-founder of ACTA. Now that the decision is up to President Brown, there can be no doubt that ACTA and Horowitz are licking their chops waiting to see Professor Churchill get the ax.

Since September 11, 2001 many forms of mainstream liberalism have been denounced as anti-American. Anyone who believes in the democratic value of academic freedom, who understands that protecting unfettered scholarly inquiry is crucial to developing and sustaining a healthy democratic society. Without the First Amendment, we would be stuck in one way of thinking, frozen in a single moral code, and dissuaded from collective introspection and change. Freedom of speech is part of what keeps us moving forward, and we all have a responsibility to protect it.

x-posted on Scholars and Rogues

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Related posts

Tags Tags: , , , , , | Print This Post Print This Post |
functional

6 Responses to “The assault on critical thinking on university campuses”

2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. odd Blogs I Read : > Brown Pride Trackback on May 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
  2. even » To Wright a Wrong - By ¡Para Justicia y Libertad! Trackback on Mar 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

4 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the Feed Comments (RSS) feed.

  1. Gravatar Icon Sprittibee May 14th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    I am a conservative and agree with you entirely that freedom of speech should be protected. It is amazing that people on both sides of the fence feel that the other sides is trying to silence them.

    This very statement you made:
    “Anyone who believes in the democratic value of academic freedom, who understands that protecting unfettered scholarly inquiry is crucial to developing and sustaining a healthy democratic society.”

    … is the exact reason why I find it ironic that the education system continues to fight against allowing “Design” to be taught along side “Macro-Evolution”.

    I think both of us can stand together on the efforts to silence lobby groups and grass-roots organizations, though. Please ask your readers to CALL TODAY on the Meehan Amendment (H.R. 2093). Here’s a great place for liberal and conservatives to join arms and march against this effort to silence free speech.

  2. Gravatar Icon Winston Churchill Jun 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am

    I don’t find anything Ward Churchill says as a critical, rational thought. He has the freedom to say what he wants, but don’t confuse Hitler and criticism of a whacked our professor, or any other, as one and the same. That is a dangerous road. His problems ran deeper than his words, including plagiarism and his questionable heritage. Our universities are full of uncritical thinkers like him. Their common agenda seems to include self-loathing and negativism then spreading it to as many young students to fulfill their perceived reality.

  3. Gravatar Icon Winston Churchill Jun 28th, 2007 at 10:56 am

    I don’t find anything Ward Churchill says as a critical, rational thought. He has the freedom to say what he wants, but don’t confuse Hitler and criticism of a whacked out professor, or any other, as one and the same. That is a dangerous road. His problems ran deeper than his words, including plagiarism and his questionable heritage. Our universities are full of uncritical thinkers like him. Their common agenda seems to include self-loathing and negativism then spreading it convincingly to as many young paying students as possible to fulfill their perceived reality.

  4. Gravatar Icon XicanoPwr Jun 30th, 2007 at 10:18 pm

    Before you start telling me what slippery slope I am traveling, maybe you should check your facts about Professor Churchill. Prior to his persecution for lack of mandatory patriotism, Churchill was honored as a valuable member of the University of Colorado faculty. He was appointed chair of the Ethnic Studies Department, placed on influential University committees, and given prestigious teaching awards.

    The first plagiarism charge concerns a 1972 pamphlet by Dam the Dams Campaign. Churchill supposedly plagiarized parts of this pamphlet in a series of four articles he published under the title “The Water Plot: Hydrological Rape in Northern Canada” (number 120, highlighted in yellow). The first article appeared in a 1989 volume edited by Professor Churchill, which he listed Dam the Dams Campaign as the first author. The the issue of plagiarism does not exist for this paper.

    The second article in Churchill’s “The Water Plot” series appeared in the April 1991 issue of Z Magazine. Churchill gave Dam the Dams Campaign co-authorship of this article, but it was Z who deleted Dam the Dams. Professor Churchill has made a point of never citing the 1991 Z Magazine article. No plagiarism there either.

    The third and fourth articles in the series appear respectively in the 1993 and 2002 editions of Churchill’s book, Struggle for the Land: Native North American Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Colonization (a book which won the Gustavus Myers Award for Literature on Human Rights). The 1989 article, of which Dam the Dams Campaign is first author, is cited in five different footnotes, and Churchill is certainly not denying the organization credit for its role in discovering and alerting the public to the water transfer scheme. Link is provided, look it up yourself and point out the plagiarism.

    Alleged Plagiarism of a Paper by Rebecca Robbins

    For one, Rebecca Robbins never accused Churchill of plagiarism. It was John LaVelle who made the accusation. In fact, the Report of the Investigative Committee even stated that LaVelle was “biased and flawed source for major arguments” against Churchill. The investigating committee dismissed the plagiarism charge, yet they did not drop this matter. Why? It is get Churchill at all cost.

    Alleged Plagiarism of a Paper by Fay G. Cohen

    Cohen’s paper was originally published in 1991 in a book entitled Critical Issues in Native North America, Volume II that was edited by Churchill and again in 1992 in The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance edited by M. Annette Jaimes, Churchill’s former wife. But in the 1992 book, the title changed under “In Usual and Accustomed Places” written by the Institute for Natural Progress an institute that is “a decentralized, indigenous-oriented research group established by Winona LaDuke, Oscar Rodriguez and Ward Churchill in 1982.” All he did was copyedited the article - which means,

    The copy editor’s job is summarized in the Five Cs: to make the copy clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent. Typically, copy editing involves correcting spelling, terminology, punctuation, grammatical, and semantic errors; ensuring that the typescript adheres to the publisher’s house style; and adding standardized headers, footers, headlines, etc. These stylistic elements must be addressed and determined before the typesetter can prepare a final proof copy.

    The copy editor is expected to ensure that the text flows, that it is sensible, fair, and accurate, and that it will provoke no legal problems for the publisher. Newspaper copy editors are sometimes responsible for choosing which news service wire copy the newspaper will use, and for rewriting it per house style. Often, the copy editor is the only person, other than the author, to read an entire text before its publication. Newspaper editors often regard copy editors as the newspaper’s last line of accurate defense.

    If what Churchill did was plagiarism then every newspaper should be charged with plagiarism. In fact, Fay Cohen wrote to the investigating committee and said that she did not complain to the UC at any time. Even though Professor Cohen does believe that her own article was plagiarized, but neither she nor the Dalhousie University legal counsel, who investigated the matter and concurs with her opinion, accuse Churchill of being the plagiarizer.

    So why are they still convicting Professor Churchill of plagiarism for a paper he did not sign in a published book he did not edit? Because it is get Churchill at all costs.

    So tell me which books should we start burning? I would suggest all history books first that way would continue the fairy tale we are being told. Don’t you agree?

Speak your mind

Comment Policy: First time comments are moderated. Please be patient.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

functional