From views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to pornography, topics discussed by visiting lecturers on campus often generate some degree of controversy. But no speaker in recent University history stirred up quite the same reaction as University of Colorado at Boulder professor Ward Churchill did last spring.
An author, Native American activist and ethnic studies professor, Churchill was scheduled to present a keynote lunch address at an April 2005 symposium titled “Homeland ‘In’Security: Race, Immigration and Labor in Post-9/11 North America.”
But Churchill was barred from presenting.
Event organizers revoked his speaking invitation because of what they called safety concerns following national controversy surrounding comments Churchill made in an academic paper about Sept. 11.
As reported in the Emerald, Churchill penned an essay in which he “referred to some victims working at the World Trade Center as ‘technocrats’ and called them ‘little Eichmanns,’ a reference to Nazi Adolf Eichmann” (“UO cancels contentious professor’s campus visit,” ODE, Feb. 14, 2005). Symposium organizers decided that canceling the professor’s keynote address was the best way to keep their event from straying onto the topic of the Churchill controversy.
Churchill indeed made statements about the 2001 terrorist attacks that can be deemed disrespectful to Sept. 11 victims. He took a risk by drawing a connection between destruction caused by U.S. foreign policy and the vengeful Sept. 11 attacks, and he paid the price; public unrest about comparing terrorist victims to Nazis is absolutely understandable.
But as Churchill pointed out in a speech before about 600 people in the EMU Ballroom Thursday, his original lecture at the University was canceled not because of the content of his presentation but because of the controversy surrounding his persona.
The symposium directors were clearly too hasty in their decision to cancel Churchill’s visit. Interacting with controversial figures, especially those who boast national notoriety, is an important aspect of any college experience. And as Churchill and his audience demonstrated Thursday, the exchange of ideas, even those that are controversial, can take place in a civil and productive manner. Churchill even stayed at the EMU for hours after his speech, smoking and chatting with students.
Although some of Churchill’s views are unusual or even radical, he merited an equal forum to express those ideas. Moreover, he made an excellent point Thursday: Free speech can easily be endangered on university campuses.
Ironically, Churchill shares this view with conservative speaker Mike Adams, who talked about academic freedom on campus Tuesday. The two scholars’ view could not be more diametrically opposed on many points, but they both understand that the institutionalized ideals of many campuses prohibit all but a certain set of politically correct beliefs.
It’s this predisposition to censor and decry “offensive” speech that has led to controversy surrounding The Insurgent’s March issue. It also caused the Oregon Commentator to come under attack last year.
We hope students, whether they agree or disagree with certain speakers or publications, will see the merits of vigorous debate on campus in light of these recent events.