By now, everyone has heard about the controversy concerning the remarks made by Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Many people are calling for the man to be terminated from his job. Churchill's credentials are now in question. Churchill, for the most part, seems recalitrant about his remarks and opinions. According to Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo
tonight, over 1,000 people attended Churchill's speech Tuesday night, many of them supported him. I don't know whether they were in support of his remarks or his defiance to "the establishment."
My opinion on the matter is that he is dead wrong about the victims of 9/11. No one, and I mean NO ONE deserved be attacked, much less killed, by the Al-Queda terrorists. NO ONE in our country was responsible for initiating those attacks. To refer to any person alive or dead who was affected by the attacks as "Nazis," "little Eichmanns," or other World War II terminology that refers to the evilness of that time is irresponsible, reprehensible, dishonest, and disrespectful. In my opinion, his remarks continue to be a slap in the face of those who lost loved ones in the attacks. As I listened to Bill O'Reilly tonight, I got the distinct impression that Churchill seems to be one of those aging Baby Boomers with radical views left over from the Vietnam conflict. Being as the case may be, I denounce Ward Churchill's comments about the victims of 9/11 and the comments about Americans deserving to be attacked and killed.
So what happens now?
I have mixed feelings about having Churchill terminated. This isn't a question of revenge, but a question of what's right. Yes, it would make a lot of us (including me) feel good to see this guy lose his job for his offensive opinions. However, has he broken any rules or laws? Just because this guy has an unpopular opinion, should he be penalized for it by terminating him from a job that he seems to otherwise be performing satisfactorily? Of course, the situation changes if he's using his opinion to penalize his students who don't agree with him; then he'd be crossing the line. By the way, Churchill is also incorrect to state that he doesn't work for the state of Colorado. If he is employed by the University of Colorado, that means taxpayer funds are used to pay his salary. That means Ward Churchill works for the state government of Colorado. That is not an opinion; that is a fact.
I also have reservations about the scrutiny Churchill is being put through to "find something on him" that could give justification to his potential job termination. Does having an unpopular opinion or making unpopular remarks justify a witch hunt? Even though some say it would be justified, my concern is that it would set a precedent for future incidents that were not nearly as controversial. Clear boundaries should not be blurred by those who push the limits or are swayed by mob rule.
In this country, we have the right to freedom of speech without fear of retribution from the government. However, with this freedom comes responsibility and the understanding that we have to take the bad with the good. That means allowing Churchill to express his opinions, even it if means angering and/or offending a large majority of people. It was stated by some in the media that Colorado tax money should not fund his controversial views, but that is a decision only the citizens and government of Colorado can make. In any case, Churchill's opinions are protected by the first amendment.
However, we also have the freedom and right to express our opinions about his opinions; have they ever! Many in the media have denounced Churchill's remarks about the victims of 9/11. It is a topic hotly debated on every news program, Internet web log, and print media. There are other ways to express views on the matter. Parents and students could express this dissatisfaction by transferring to or choosing another college in light of Ward Churchill remaining at University of Colorado. Alumni and sponsors of the University of Colorado could refuse to donate any more money so long as Churchill remained on the payroll.
What do I think should be done to Ward Churchill? Well, I keep thinking what my dad said about similar situations. He said, "If you openly say anything that aids or abets the enemy against this country, then you are guilty of treason." This is coming from a man who served 32 years honorably in the United States Navy. Sometimes, it's hard to see that fine line between making an honest criticism about the perceived faults of this country and making remarks that do nothing but demoralize the citizens and/or those in the military. However, the line is still there and should never be crossed. If Churchill's remarks are how he feels about the United States, then he should leave and establish a citizenship elsewhere. That is what I think Ward Churchill should do.
Only time will tell just how strongly they feel on the matter as actions speak louder than words. Right now, talk is cheap and plentiful. The proof will be in what actions are taken by anyone affected by Churchill's opinions.
