Reply
Thu 3 Feb, 2005 07:12 pm
CU prof's essay sparks dispute
Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people
By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
January 27, 2005
A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.
Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.
They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."
The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of "chickens coming home to roost."
Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.
The essay contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.
It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."
The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."
"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.
Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay.
"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.
"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."
The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."
A longtime activist with the American Indian Movement, Churchill was one of eight defendants acquitted last week in Denver County Court on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade.
His pending speech at Hamilton has drawn criticism from professors and students, including Matt Coppo, a sophomore whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks.
"His views are completely hurtful to the families of 3,000 people," Coppo said.
A spokesman for Hamilton College released a statement noting that Hamilton is committed to "the free exchange of ideas. We expect that many of those who strongly disagree with Mr. Churchill's comments will attend his talk and make their views known."
Controversial statements
In his essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, CU professor Ward Churchill argues that:
The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.
Hijackers who crashed jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.
The people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He should be fired for being a dumbass. Most will disagree but seriously how much of a loss will he be to UC? Not much. He's creating bad publicity so sack him. And don't start mentioning some "freedom of speech" bs. If I walked into my employer's office and said the Jews deserved what they got, the Nazis were not murderers they were "purgers", and then proceeded to write a public essay on it, shaming my institution, they sure as hell better fire my ass.
Quote: The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.
So why didn't they attack the UN?
Because that wasn't why they attacks. Churchill should go play in traffic.
Somone voted No and then didn't give a reason why they said no?
I would love to hear why this guy should be kept on.
I was going to post that as well Tico...
Ann Coulter wrote:If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university.
What's the implication here? That only Indians can teach Indian Studies?
Why should he be fired?
Here is an "intellectual", trying to communicate the reasons why we were attacked. While I do not totally agree with his thesis, I understand his perceived reasons for the attack.
Most in the media, and even the above posted article, have taken his remarks out of context and distorted them from their actual meanings.
joefromchicago wrote:Ann Coulter wrote:If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university.
What's the implication here? That only Indians can teach Indian Studies?
Joe, it's my understanding that he used "being an Indian" to obtain that position at the university. I'll see if I can find a source.
joefromchicago wrote:Ann Coulter wrote:If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university.
What's the implication here? That only Indians can teach Indian Studies?
I don't think there should be ethnic studies to begin with. Most of these classes are racist anyways. There was even an attempt at CU to have black only studies classes, which would have brought segregation back into the schools. This is the complete opposite of what MLK fought for in the first place. Why separate people into separate groups for the reason of teaching? Aren't we all Americans that should be living in a color blind society to begin with?
joefromchicago wrote:Ann Coulter wrote:If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university.
What's the implication here? That only Indians can teach Indian Studies?
Joe, I don't think you have the correct implication, but I obviously can't speak for Ms. Coulter. I personally believe that a non-Indian can teach "Indian Studies." But I think she is suggesting that the only thing he offers is the fact that he "is an Indian." Since he isn't, what is left? I believe she is referring to Mr. Churchill specifically, not making a general observation about the head of Indian Studies at all Universities.
I watched Mr Ward Churchill on cspan last night, he was introduced by Russell Means of American Indian Movement. Was indeed interesting. Being a graduate of CU I found Mr Churchill not atypical of several "radical" profs at the Univ (well as least more radical than myself). I also found it interesting that the Gov (bill owens) and the regents of CU attempted to have a meeting so they could fire Mr Churchill but had to cancel it at the last moment when they found out they didn't have the legal authority to fire any faculty. When I attented above Univ there was a invited prof from California who advocated the premise that "blacks' were inherently inferior to whites and there were lots of protests from "liberals" CU has often been a hotbed of radical ideas and I suppose has a reputation as such. It also has a fine Medical school and school of law. Rumour has it that CU once offered a course re the holocaust but was canceled when it was found out the historian scheduled to teach the course was not 100% Jewish. (I digress) Anyway while I am not offering specific support for Mr Churchill I also think the Univ hires and fires its faculity at its discretion, not public(or political) opinion. Perhaps some of you above with such strong feelings should be the authority at CU doing the hiring and firing as you seem to indicate that you are more emintently qualified to do so. In your neighborhood what direction does the sun come up from?
Just Wonders: If Churchill misrepresented his academic or professional credentials, then he should be dismissed or disciplined. On the other hand, if he misrepresented his ethnic credentials, I'm not so sure he should be punished. After all, the university is not permitted to inquire into that area, nor can it make hiring decisions based upon that criterion. If the university (wrongly) limited its search to Indians for heading its Indian Studies program, and Churchill claimed (wrongly) that he was Indian, I'm not sure why we should punish Churchill rather than the university.
Baldimo: You think that studying ethnic minorities is racist?
Ticomaya: I suppose that's one way to look at it, although that's not the sense I got from reading the article. Sadly, Ms. Coulter is not here to clarify her remarks.
Gov. Bill Owens on Wednesday renewed his call that University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill be fired, arguing that Churchill doesn't deserve to teach at the university.
Regent Michael Carrigan
Quote:"I disagree with the content, but I support his right to say it," Carrigan said. "It speaks volumes that the University of Colorado is a place for open discourse and debate as we saw Tuesday, and the Glenn Miller Ballroom should not only be available to those who the governor approves."
Firing or not firing him has zero to do with his right to say what he wants. It has to do with him being completely and utterly insane in what he says. Firing him would not take away his rights to say whatever he wants... it would just take away his pulpit from which he is saying it.
Quote:Baldimo: You think that studying ethnic minorities is racist?
Not the studies of the ethnic people's themselves. It is the way in which white people are presented in some of these classes. It leads to many coming out of these classes with a negative attitude towards white people. The white man of today has nothing to do with the white man of yesterday, and isn't representative of the white man of the times as a whole.
I don't think he should be fired for the said reasons in the Rocky Mountain News article. A stronger reason that is arguable is stated in the "Bull-S-***" article, even though i doubt the source's accuracy [perhaps a biased article]. Such as joefromchicago said, his ethnic credientials should not be ground for being fired. Although if being Indian IS a requirement for his position, i can see the reasoning. But wait, the college singled out Indians ONLY for that position? maybe the college should be accused of racial profiling?
He should be fired for inpugning the integrity of his position by creating a hostile environment in his classroom. Also, he is an attention slut. That's the only reason he would write the crap he did, to gain the attention he craves.
If some of what he's written has been quoted accurately, he'll be fired for incompetence.
Of course, then the ACLU will become involved and this thing will drag out forever.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace