Academic freedom

A tremendous debate about academic freedom has been ignited by conservative Weblogs and Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel about the comments made by professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado in his 2001 essay, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."

Churchill's 12-page essay about U.S. imperial arrogance and the deep hostility of many people for our government contained several inflammatory statements about the 9-11 World Trade Center victims.

In what is clearly an offensive passage, Churchill likens 9-11 victims to Nazis, writing, "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."

For 3 1/2 years these comments sparked little interest. However, when Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College this spring, a faculty member complained to the Hamilton administration, and the campus newspaper publicized his comments. Within a week, Bill O'Reilly was discussing Churchill on his program.

Within two weeks, the Colorado Board of Regents held a special meeting about the issue, and the chancellor announced that "the office of the chancellor will launch and oversee a thorough examination of Professor Churchill's writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works."

The review will determine whether there are any grounds for dismissal for cause and, if so, whether First Amendment rights protect Churchill's conduct.

Clearly the First Amendment protects Churchill's right to make offensive comments. Had a better, more respectable scholar (say, Noam Chomsky) made the same or similar remarks, Fox News would find it much harder to sustain an attack on academic freedom. Still, the critical issue for university faculty is whether academic freedom and tenure should protect Churchill's job. They should not, but not because what he said about 9-11.

Newspaper columnists and talk-show hosts routinely make offensive comments. People like Mona Charen, Molly Ivens, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore come to mind.

Indeed, Churchill's chief antagonist, O'Reilly, regularly trades in outrage and invective. So, are university professors held to a higher level of accountability than political commentators and, if so, why?

Academic freedom is designed to protect faculty members from being punished for the expression of unpopular ideas. However, there are duties which accompany these rights.

A faculty member is a citizen, a member of a learned profession and a representative of the educational institution. This special position in the community imposes special obligations.

Therefore, faculty members should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others and should make every effort to indicate that they are not institutional spokespersons.

Do Churchill's comments fit within the conditions of appropriate restraint or respect for the opinions of others?

If not, should he be fired?

Churchill probably should be fired, but not because of what he said about 9-11.

While most faculty members would probably defend Churchill's right to academic freedom, the matter is not as straightforward as it seems. You see, it is not that Churchill's statements lie outside the protection of academic freedom, but rather it is Churchill himself who lies outside the realm.

Note his credentials listed to advertise him as an educational speaker for Speak Out -- Institute for Democratic Education and Culture: "Ward Churchill (Keetoowah Band Cherokee) is one of the most outspoken of American Indian activists and scholars in North America and a leading analyst of indigenous issues."

The facts are different from these listed credentials.

Churchill has built his career around his identity as American Indian, particularly his Cherokee and Creek identity.

Minority status for American Indians, unlike other minority groups, is a clear-cut affair. One must be an enrolled member of a federally recognized American Indian group.

But Churchill is not enrolled as a member of any tribe. He was granted an honorary membership in the United Keetoowah Band in 1993, but that status does not confer upon him rights of tribal membership.

This claim of Indianness is an Indian affair, so it is important to listen to what Indians have to say. One good source for this information is Indian Country Today, a national Indian newspaper (IndianCountryToday.com).

Suzan Shown Harjo has reviewed Churchill's history of claiming various Indian identities and his abuse on others whenever he has been questioned or contradicted by American Indian people. She concludes that Churchill has used his associate membership card to "to bully his way around campuses and newsrooms" and used his "various 'Indian' credentials on resumes as he moved into academe."

Moreover, the claim "that he is Indian by virtue of community acceptance over a prolonged period" is also false.

Finally, "Churchill is the Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair and Jack Kelley of American Indian studies, but without their talent. Churchill simply makes it up too, plus he invents Indian credentials. Keep in mind that no one accused their papers of violating free speech when they fired frauds for cause."

Ward Churchill's academic career is based on his claim to Indian identity, but that claim appears fraudulent. Churchill goes so far as to attack legitimate American Indians who point out his fraud.

Academic freedom and tenure are fundamental to what we do as scholars and teachers. But, what do we do when those protections are abused by someone who has manipulated the system until he can claim the privilege of academic freedom and tenure protection?

Accountability, responsibility and professional standards are critical issues for academia, as well as for other professions such as law and medicine. We claim the privilege of academic freedom. With privilege comes responsibility.

As Susan Harjo puts it: Churchill got jobs, promotions, tenure and the ethnic studies chair at the University of Colorado because he portrayed himself as American Indian.

Now he's wrapped himself in the First Amendment, carefully draped over his Indian blanket. He's threatening to sue if he's fired for breach of contract or for the shameful things he said about the 9-11 victims.

The university should fire him because he has perpetrated a fraud, and moral turpitude is a deal breaker. Fraud does not qualify for the protections of academic freedom.

One final note is needed here. The attack on academic freedom being waged by Bill O'Reilly and Fox News is disingenuous. Fox News is disguising what is really an attack upon a fraud as a legitimate attack on the institution of academic freedom. Churchill may be a fraud and may need to go, but that in no way implies that there ought to be more restrictions on academic freedom.

Carol A. Morrow, associate professor of anthropology, and Hamner Hill , professor of philosophy, teach at Southeast Missouri State University.