Professor Not Swayed by Critics

Ward Churchill peered into a packed Pauley Ballroom yesterday afternoon and asked, "Scary, aren't I?"

In a talk organized by the ethnic studies department, Churchill joined a three-member panel to defend the validity of his research on what he calls genocide against Native Americans. The University of Colorado professor also spoke about his academic freedom to express his scholarly opinions.

"The rubric of the First Amendment says all citizens are imbued with the prerogative to express their views how and when they'd like," he said.

But in light of recent events, "now we know that's not true," he said.

Churchill has been sharply rebuked for comparing Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi bureaucrat credited with orchestrating the Holocaust.

Although some have labeled Eichmann a monster, Churchill said the United States has its own bureaucrats who indirectly commit daily atrocities while disregarding real human consequences.

The comparison, he said, points out that the United States has a long history of committing similar crimes against other nations.

But these views have drawn heavy criticism. Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and conservative television commentator Bill O'Reilly are leading a campaign calling for Churchill's removal from the university.

Churchill resigned as chair of his department in February because of political backlash. The University of Colorado Board of Regents has begun reviewing Churchill's published work in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify terminating of the tenured professor.

Last Thursday, the regents announced that Churchill could not be fired due to his First Amendment rights. Still, the university continues to investigate him for allegations of plagiarism and falsely identifying himself as a Native American.

Churchill dismissed the allegations as "anorexically-thin nonsense" being used to as a pretext for his censure.

Churchill went on to ridicule the skepticism that has developed around his true ethnicity as evidence that he is being pursued to an absurd extent.

"And finally, on to the really dangerous question-am I really an Indian?" he joked. "The question of my identity is being put in terms of research integrity."

The other panelists, including Dean of Arts and Humanities Ralph Hexter and ethnic studies professor Carlos Munoz, supported Churchill. The third panelist, Natsu Saito, an international law professor at Georgia State University, also spoke in his defense. Saito and Churchill are dating.

Hexter said the controversy that developed over Churchill is odd, particularly because most post-tenure reviews are conducted on very serious charges like sexual harassment.

"There's a new culture of offense-taking," he said. "It's almost as if Churchill's words were sacrilegious."

Munoz said the attacks on Churchill were reminiscent of McCarthyism in the 1950s, having broader implications touching every American.

Though the crowd was largely sympathetic to Churchill, a few UC Berkeley students objected to what they said was a very biased presentation of the issue.

"To me, academic freedom means these people shouldn't say things that are factually incorrect," said Kerry Eskenas, who attended the event. "Churchill is making an extremely broad generalization."

First-year student Andrew Quinio said that Churchill seemed to be making the most of the media frenzy.

"They're talking about academic freedom, but the panel's completely one-sided," he said. "Ward Churchill said he's been violated, yet he hasn't been fired and the media's drooling all over him."

Still, the panelists said all opinions, including controversial ones, deserve to be heard.

"Academic freedom is essential for arguments and counterarguments to be heard," Munoz said. "It leads to informed decisions."

Tags: