Ward Churchill-The Freedom of Voice

Editor's Note -- In the fall of 2005, I posted a blog on Ward Churchill. Unfortunately, the posting was lost. I have tried to re-create my thoughts at that the time.

Introduction,

At the beginning of the year  (2005), I wrote this essay and published it with another web blog. My opinion remains remains the same. However painful his words, he has the right to say them. In the following weeks, I will reintroduce a number of my essays that I have done in the past couple of years. I will hope they will bring commentary from other essayist. From time to time, I will simply post a notice asking for commentary on current events, social, political, economical, or whatever musings that strikes your fancy. Humor, satirical, allegorical, or even your daily observations will be welcomed.

Please feel free to contribute to the site, please send me your musings and contributions to my new email address: gksden@gmail.com. Send them in an attached file, a Word document file. If necessary, in your email body, and I will make the necessary adjustments...


It does not matter, whether you are a democrat or republican, the words of Ward Churchill are/were hurtful, outlandish, inflammatory-and spiteful. But! He has the right to say them. Some view his words as pathetic, poor, and verifiably dishonest. The political maelstrom that he has created with talk show hosts is that he, Ward Churchill, is a professor at public university. Where he, as they define it, is being paid by the "citizens of the state," of Colorado to "propagandize" the vehement rant in his essay is a disservice, not only to the victims of 9/11, but to the general public as well. They pontificate, and I paraphrase: "As he is paid by "we," the citizens of the state that he should be subject disciplinary action including and up to termination.

Ward Churchill's insensitivity to the victims of 9/11, and the fact that his inflammatory speech appear to support the terrorist's actions-should effectively, at the least, be censured and censored from the public university's system." However, they all agree that he has right to say them. Some view his words as treasonous because they seem to provide "aid" and "comfort" to the enemy of the United States; he, nonetheless, has a right to say them. But what was most upsetting was his "tone" in which he framed the debate. They have termed his words as "hate speech," "anti-Jewish," and the comparison of the US and 1939 Nazi's Germany as malicious.

Furthermore, Churchill's comparison of 9/11 victims as "little Eichmanns," to most, was over-the-top; but he has the right to say them. Unfortunately, setting aside the emotional rhetoric of Churchill's essay and his professorship has clouded the underlining "thesis" of the essay. His discourse is valid. For instance, the near genocide of American Indian, and the internment of Japanese citizens, and the oppression of African American with Jim Crow laws and other minorities could have gave credence to his argument-but his incendiary comments destroy any credible point he may have had; nevertheless, he has a right to say them. To censor him, as some have suggested, through termination, only validates his anger. Makes him a martyr; further his hate; his views, although destructive, he has a right to say them. From his writings and this particular essay, we can denote the "modeling" of his Nazi Germany comparison with the US. He has understandable and credible points that are even sympathetic, yet his tonality of hostility within the essay has dissuaded the public from trying to understand.

All the same, he has the right to say them. So, the question begs-is it truly his agenda to persuade the public to his point view, or to fester more hostility between the political correctness crowd and the everyday citizenry? Churchill has certainly, in some quarters, destroyed any chance of winning the hearts and minds, to convert, to invert, or to co-opt those who would be persuaded; but he has a right to say them. Those who would advocate his departure as a solution have failed on three counts. First, it is far better to discredit and shun an individual in the glaring openness of the light than those hiding in darkness. Second, the freedom of speech is not just for those in the majority-but for those in the minority. And third, he has invalidated his own speech by his own failure to acknowledge that every person has a right to their point-of-view; yet, he has right to say them.

Finally, all Ward Churchill has succeeded in doing is destroying his message and any movement that he may have represented. However, that may be truly his purpose: to create outlandish rhetoric and write hateful words to sabotage any credible perspectives from within. At any rate it is just a thought, but remember he has a right to say them.