My alma mater has a knack for being controversial. The latest (after the CloneAid lady and the Susan Rosenberg debacle) is the invitation to notorious University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill.
The Background
Churchill wrote convtroversial and strongly-worded essay about the causes of 9/11. The story was "broken" by Bill O'Reilly, which of course incited the masses to protest. The speech was eventually cancelled because of threats of violence.
ASIDE: Ok, wait, let me get this straight: people are up in arms because Churchill "supports terrorism" and their solution is… to threaten terrorist acts? Wow.
Our new President (who I haven't had much interaction with) defended the decision to bring him in on the basis of free speech. Many have derided her for this.
Richard Mullenax says:
It is hard to believe that any school in America would be willing to pay a terrorist sympathizer to speak in its facility, but Hamilton College was willing to cough up $3,500 to have that happen. However, Joan Stewart hid behind "free speech" to allow Churchill to speak, "however repugnant one might find Mr. Churchill's remarks."
That is interesting. So when will it take Mrs. Stewart to pay any grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan to give a speech for Hamilton? After all, she is a defender of free speech, so why not invite a KKK official and get the worst of the worst? Perhaps Mrs. Stewart sets the left-wing standard at Hamilton. Perhaps she believes that racist remarks of segregation are wrong, while another man claiming that Americans deserved to die on 9/11 is okay. Where does Mrs. Stewart draw the line?
Richard also has a quote from Governor Pataki:
I am appalled first that this person with such a warped sense of right and wrong and of humanity teaches at a higher education institution anywhere in America. But I am equally, or perhaps even more, appalled that Hamilton College in this state has invited that person to participate in a forum. It is wrong. There is a difference between freedom of speech and inviting a bigoted terrorist supporter.
The issue of free speech
Even O'Reilly doesn't question whether Ward Churchill has a right to say write these things. The speech is clearly protected. The question is solely whether Hamilton was wrong to provide a forum for the speech.
Reasoned Discourse…
Ward Churchill is a Native American scholar and the invitation was for forum about prison rights for Native Americans. The forum had nothing to do with his specific views on 9/11.
Many who have spoken out against Churchill's invitation have apparently missed this point. It doesn't mean that his views aren't relevant, but it is an important distinction necessary to properly frame the issue.
Prof. Bainbridge explained this very eloquently in an e-mail exchange we had:
"… I think there are legitimate limits on the discourse for which one ought to provide a forum. This includes not only specific ideas, but also people whose stated views on some issues disqualify them from reasoned discourse on any issue."
I don't disagree with the Prof, but I do question whether his stated views do indeed disqualify him from reasoned discourse. Nor does the fact that his points are, as O'Reilly says, “insensitive and unsettling remarks”.
I worked across the street from the World Trade Center and continue to work and live in Lower Manhattan. I have many friends and family in the NYPD and FDNY. 9/11 is a very personal thing for me. Needless to say, I don't think we "deserved it".
That alone, however, does not mean that his points are not well-reasoned. The premise of his essay is, contrary to popular belief, these attacks were not unprovoked.
Half-Cocked weighs in:
If you ignore the soundbites from Fox News and the like, his essay, save for some poor uses of Nazi metaphor, is pretty dead-on.
Basically, he says that U.S. imperialism over the last 20 years, and really Western Christian Crusaderism over the last millenium, including the Clinton administration's continuation of Bush I's policy towards Iraq, resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children and increased suffering for the survivors. I don't think that can be disputed.
Also consider this point from a Colgate newspaper:
The point that Churchill was attempting to make with these statements was taken way out of context and was wildly distorted by O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media. Churchill makes the argument that the U.S. acted as a rogue nation and has been in violation of various international laws, drawing the ire of many different groups of people. He claimed that what happened on 9/11 wasn't merely a terrorist attack but rather the inevitable retaliation for crimes against the international community. Those working in the World Trade Center, not the janitors, policemen and fire fighters who lost their lives, were part of the machine that allowed for the U.S. to commit these international atrocities. The right wing media, however, painted Churchill as a traitor and a lunatic, disregarding his argument in its entirety and focusing instead on the sound bites that they could most easily distort to benefit their own personal agendas.
See also The Fuss about Ward Churchill, where Ms. Grimes says the problem is that “he dismisses information that does not support his position.” She also has very valid criticism about the style and form of Churchill's essay.
The problem, I think, is that 9/11 is still emotional issue for most people, and it becomes difficult for us to think about it objectively. Actually, this problem is common with any sensitive issue, as evidenced by many discussions about abortion and gay marriage.
The important thing to remember is just because your views differ from another's doesn't mean they are patently wrong.
The Hallmark of a Liberal Arts Education
Hamilton College is a liberal arts college. Instead of focusing on specific, vocational knowledge, a liberal arts curriculum attempts to impart you with a broad base of knowledge and the ability to draw conclusions from that. In other words, it teaches you how to think.
To achieve this, it is necessary to expose the students to a broad range of ideas. Some of those ideas are going to be the popular mainstream ones, but some must necessarily be ideas that you don't agree with.
As Aristotle said , "It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea and not accept it". As you may have noticed, this quote is in the sidebar on my site and is one of my favorites....
I think the fact that he was not able to speak was a lost opportunity for the Ha