Two sides to free speech

In a university environment like Penn's, it is popular to say that we support free speech and open discourse. At the University of Colorado-Boulder, that commitment has recently been put to the test.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Professor Ward Churchill published a paper comparing the victims at the World Trade Center to the Nazi mastermind Adolf Eichmann. The article, entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" (the title refers to a Malcolm X quotation) advocates that the terrorists be viewed as "combatants" who were responding to American genocides. One portion claimed:

"As to those in the World Trade Center ... Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire. ... To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in -- and in many cases excelling at -- it was because of their absolute refusal to see.

"More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

Perhaps surprisingly, the piece garnered only minimal attention until recently. In response to public outcry, Churchill resigned his position as the chairman of Colorado's ethnic studies department and the University of Colorado Board of Regents announced plans to review his tenure, according to The Denver Post.

It should be noted that this is not the first time Churchill has gotten himself into hot water. The professor previously displayed his shrill hyperbole (as well as his obsession with Nazi imagery) when he criticized the meatpacking industry and medical researchers in Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals.

"To assault the meatpacking industry," Churchill opined, "is to mount a challenge to the mentality that allowed well over a million dehumanized humans to be systematically slaughtered by the SS Einsatzgruppen in eastern Europe during the early 1940s, and the Nazis' simultaneous development of truly industrial killing techniques in places like Auschwitz, Sobibor and Treblinka."

It's almost superfluous to note that Churchill's views are preposterous and repulsive. The real question is: should he lose his professorship?

As much as I am tempted to say, "Yes! Yes! Take it away!," I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion that Churchill's views are protected free speech. The University of Colorado is a public institution that must abide by the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

Moreover, academic institutions must be places where divergent ideas can be expressed and discussed. Rescinding Churchill's tenure for his offensive writings ultimately paves the way for denying professorships to people with a wide variety of unpopular views, ranging from the war in Iraq to affirmative action.

Academic institutions must remain strongholds of the right to say things that are provocative, offensive and stupid. Although I think it is reasonable that Churchill resigned his department chairmanship (since the University is under no obligation to make him their public representative), I do not think he should be fired.

Ironically, however, it seems that Ward Churchill's own free speech issues may be his ultimate undoing. Although First Amendment rights protect his views, new allegations have surfaced that he frequently denies that right to other people. For example, according to Rocky Mountain News, after the Oklahoma City bombing, Churchill proclaimed to his classes that the victims of the attacks deserved what they got. When students objected, he reportedly refused to allow them to speak and academically penalized those who wrote letters of complaint.

Jodi Rave, an award-winning Native American journalist and a student of Churchill, had a similar experience. When she wrote an article for Colorado Daily that denied his claimed Native American background, he changed her grade from an A- to a C-.

In the end, some may construe this examination of Churchill's teaching to be unfair. After all, his classroom methods and Native American background would never have been inspected so closely had he not espoused extremist views. But that's the beauty of the First Amendment: it works in all directions.

While Churchill's views are not grounds for tenure revocation, denying students' free speech rights and making false claims in his academic advocacy might be. If you are going to make outrageous claims, you have to take it as well as you can give it.

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.