The essay was written right after the attacks and only gained notoriety when he was invited to participate on a panel at Hamilton College. Churchill was singled out by the ultra-right, with the assistance of Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. The University of Colorado correctly concluded that he could not be fired for expressing his views, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, a number of substantial allegations about Churchill’s academic conduct were also raised around that time. UC administration launched an investigation, into “Professor Churchill’s writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works.” The panel determined that there were concerns regarding “standards of professional integrity,” including charges of possible “research misconduct.” Churchill was fired in 2007.

Churchill sued the university for firing him from his tenured position for expressing politically unpopular, but constitutionally protected, views. The university argued in the trial that he was not fired for his political views but rather for sloppy academic work. The jury agreed with Churchill. I am pleased with their decision.

There is little doubt that the investigation of Churchill work was motivated by the popular discontent sparked by the contents of his 9/11 essay. In fact, the Preliminary Review report states it.

This review of Professor Churchill’s work was sparked by an essay purportedly written on September 12, 2001, the day after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, (the “9/11 Essay”) and particularly his use of the term “little Eichmanns” in the 9/11 Essay to refer to the victims of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks.

At one point during the trial, the jury submitted a question asking Mr. Churchill would accusations of academic misconduct would have raised if it were not for the dust-up. The obvious answer is no.

The person I really feel bad for is CU’s attorney, Patrick O’Rourke. His job was to convince the jury that Churchill was NOT “dismissed for Constitutionally protected speech.”

Being a child of a university professor, I couldn’t help but follow the case. CU really mounted a weak defense and the expert testimonials CU used end up helping make Churchill’s case for him. The weakness of the defense is rooted in the simple fact that CU never had anything like a “strong case” against Churchill, merely strong opinions and strong attitudes of outrage.

Did he say things he shouldn’t have said? Well, how is that any different when college students throwing race based theme parties? That’s the conundrum of free speech – it’s all a matter of perspective.

As for accusations of plagiarism, the publications in question occurred either before he received tenure in 1991 or was promoted to full Professor in 1997. Any professor will tell you getting through the tenure process is challenging and very stressful on junior faculty. The fact is, the tenure and promotion process is full of checks and balances, if he was the worst offender some like to think, then what does that say about the institution.

I liked Mike Littwin, of the Denver Post, explanation how this was a no brainier.

However, looking back on how this got started reveals a lot about double standard this country applies to people of color who talk about events of 9/11. The news media depicted Wright as a racial extremist and anti-American. During the last two weeks, the media flooded the airwaves with excerpts from sermons of the Rev. Wright.

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” However, Rev. Wright was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News.

I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) — a white man — he pointed out — an ambassador — that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true; America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
…
America’s chickens are coming home to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.

A White ambassador said that, y’all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism; an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.

Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days. Turn back to your neighbor, and say, “Footnote is over.”

That’s what he told the congregation. However, instead of seeking the truth, Rev. Wright was met with the same fervor and damnation the media lauded on Ward Churchill, the tenured professor who was kicked out from the University of Colorado in July 2007 for alleged “research misconduct.”

George Orwell once wrote, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” From all indications, the gatekeepers for big media in the United States don’t want people to hear what people like Rev. Wright or Churchill have to say.

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general public. It is their function to inculcate individuals with the values and beliefs that are deemed acceptable to society. It is not surprising to see major media outlets seem far more interested in marginalizing Rev. Wright than allowing him a space for his own words. Media attacks on him are especially vitriolic with venomous misrepresentation.

Since Sept. 11, the distortions have been predictable: Although he’s an unequivocal opponent of terrorism in all its forms, Rev. Wright is portrayed as an apologist for terrorism. His life is now threaten and is forced to cancel upcoming appearance.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, presidential candidate Barack Obama’s controversial former pastor, canceled plans Wednesday to receive an award at a summit on black churches.
…
Wright has also canceled plans to speak at three services in a Houston church Sunday. He canceled plans Tuesday to speak at a church in Tampa, Fla.
…
The Rev. Marcus Cosby, pastor at Houston’s Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, told Houston television station KTRK and the Houston Chronicle that safety concerns had prompted Wright’s decision.

More troubling is how white and Republican voters forced Barack Obama to “distance” himself from his pastor of twenty years due to a few phrases; no context whatsoever has been offered or explored.

The media and other institutions form prisms through which ideas and information reach the public, according to Noam Chomsky. Those who care about freedom and democracy, about controlling their own lives, must discern how social realities are distorted by such prisms.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Last Tuesday, University of Colorado President and former US Senator [tag]Hank Brown[/tag] 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 [tag]ACTA[/tag], 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 [tag]academic freedom[/tag], 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