a.k.a.
02-18-2005, 06:30 PM
I’m sure at least some of
you have been following the media circus surrounding Ward Churchill. The corporate press frames him as some sort of
wild eyed agitator; while the alternative press tends to depict him as some kind of hero for democracy.
(For
a relatively balanced view, check out this recent interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/157211 )
The funny (?) thing is that
I’ve met him on several occasions and my impression is that he’s not very radical at all. One of those armchair
pontificators that would probably run and hide if a real revolution ever hit the streets.
Truth is, I don’t
quite like the man. Part of it may be that I have to introduce myself afresh every time. Another thing is that he
speaks with that smug certainty that I hate about academics.
But mostly I hate his open disdain for class
analysis.
In my darker moments I think there’d be some karmic justice if he did get dismissed. Because
he stepped on quite a few Marxist backs (during a time when “communism” was the boogeyman) to get where he is
today.
But that would be wrong, because this whole ‘controversy’ has almost nothing to do with Ward
Churchill and almost everything to do with free speech, academic freedom, and the criminalization of
dissent.
First of all, the academic review that is currently taking place is pure media drama.
Like him or not, Ward Churchill is extremely intelligent, extremely well read, extremely prolific, and extremely
competent within his field. A walking encyclopedia of Civil Rights statutes and International Law.
Pick up one
of his books (I heartily recommend "Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the Fbi's Secret Wars Against Domestic
Dissent" or "Agents of Repression: The Fbi's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian
Movement" ) and you’ll see historical research the way it’s supposed to be done (Primary sources wherever they exist
and impeccable documentation throughout).
The notion that he lacks academic credentials and is merely skating
by on taxpayer money is pure fabrication; and IMO playing to racist images of lazy Indians demanding handouts from
Uncle Sam.
Second of all, even if you take his comments out of context, they don’t approach any
legalistic definition of sedition. (I’m sure this is why the focus is on his academic credentials.) Everything else
is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.
If you read his “little Eichmans” reference within context.
He’s making a good point about the blow-back we should expect from trying to impose a double-standard on the world.
Something that should concern anybody that’s genuinely concerned about national security.
Could he
have made the same point with a bit more tact and sensitivity? No doubt.
Is he a grandstanding little drama
prick? Probably.
Should he be stripped of his academic credentials and publicly demonized? Maybe the guy
deserves it, but I shudder to think of the precedent that this would set.
The way I see it, it’s not
about Ward Churchill’s career. It’s about our freedoms.
you have been following the media circus surrounding Ward Churchill. The corporate press frames him as some sort of
wild eyed agitator; while the alternative press tends to depict him as some kind of hero for democracy.
(For
a relatively balanced view, check out this recent interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/157211 )
The funny (?) thing is that
I’ve met him on several occasions and my impression is that he’s not very radical at all. One of those armchair
pontificators that would probably run and hide if a real revolution ever hit the streets.
Truth is, I don’t
quite like the man. Part of it may be that I have to introduce myself afresh every time. Another thing is that he
speaks with that smug certainty that I hate about academics.
But mostly I hate his open disdain for class
analysis.
In my darker moments I think there’d be some karmic justice if he did get dismissed. Because
he stepped on quite a few Marxist backs (during a time when “communism” was the boogeyman) to get where he is
today.
But that would be wrong, because this whole ‘controversy’ has almost nothing to do with Ward
Churchill and almost everything to do with free speech, academic freedom, and the criminalization of
dissent.
First of all, the academic review that is currently taking place is pure media drama.
Like him or not, Ward Churchill is extremely intelligent, extremely well read, extremely prolific, and extremely
competent within his field. A walking encyclopedia of Civil Rights statutes and International Law.
Pick up one
of his books (I heartily recommend "Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the Fbi's Secret Wars Against Domestic
Dissent" or "Agents of Repression: The Fbi's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian
Movement" ) and you’ll see historical research the way it’s supposed to be done (Primary sources wherever they exist
and impeccable documentation throughout).
The notion that he lacks academic credentials and is merely skating
by on taxpayer money is pure fabrication; and IMO playing to racist images of lazy Indians demanding handouts from
Uncle Sam.
Second of all, even if you take his comments out of context, they don’t approach any
legalistic definition of sedition. (I’m sure this is why the focus is on his academic credentials.) Everything else
is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.
If you read his “little Eichmans” reference within context.
He’s making a good point about the blow-back we should expect from trying to impose a double-standard on the world.
Something that should concern anybody that’s genuinely concerned about national security.
Could he
have made the same point with a bit more tact and sensitivity? No doubt.
Is he a grandstanding little drama
prick? Probably.
Should he be stripped of his academic credentials and publicly demonized? Maybe the guy
deserves it, but I shudder to think of the precedent that this would set.
The way I see it, it’s not
about Ward Churchill’s career. It’s about our freedoms.