Ward Churchill & Freedom of Speech

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is testing the grounds of how well Americans tolerate freedom of speech versus academic scholarship. First, a few facts:
(From an online biography)
Churchill is also a past national spokesperson for the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee, has served as a delegate to the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (as a Justice/Rapporteur for the for the 1993 International People’s Tribunal on the Rights of Indigenous Hawaiians), and as an advocate/prosecutor of the First Nations International Tribunal for the Chiefs of Ontario.
Essays and Books:
Marxism and Native Americans, Fantasies of the Master Race, Struggle for the Land, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, From A Native Son, Critical Issues in Native North America, The COINTELPRO Papers, Indians R Us?, Agents of Repression, Since Predator Came, and A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas.

1991- Churchill is hired as a tenured professor into the Communications Department as a tenured professor.
1997- Moved to Department of Ethnic Studies with tenure.

As best as I can figure Ward Churchill was given tenure based upon his work in defending, speaking out, leading various active Native American groups. In addition to his claim of having Cherokee blood (it should be noted that so far a Denver newspaper has been unable to validate this claim, though Churchill has been stating this since high school). He has written several books, in fairness far more than most professors. By all accounts his classes are always packed and he challenges students to defend their statements. Comments from students range from those who support him, “he makes us think”, to those who say, “He refuses to accept other points of view as valid”. In a calm environment this seems to sound like a typical college campus where there is one professor who is a lightening rod.

To understand the current furror below is an exact quote from Churchill’s Book that has so many enraged:
“As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
 
 Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to “ignorance” – a derivative, after all, of the word “ignore” – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. 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. ”

Anytime anyone or any group is compared to the absolute evil of Hitler and his henchman watchout, the s*%t is going to hit the fan.

In other work, Churchill has made some almost equally blatant statements. Various members of the academic community in his field across the country have questioned his academic research. The inference being that he limits his scholarly research to only items those few items that proves his point. In one case he has been accused of outright plagerism of a University of New Mexico professor.
The full text of the accusation can be found here: http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm

Now Bill O’Reilly has gotten Fox News to stay glued to Churchill’s every move, while the other networks have tried to let the issue fade away. O’Reilly claims that this is because of their liberal bias. I’m betting that the network’s reply would be that Churchill doesn’t deserve all the attention and it’s better to let things die down. O’Reilly, meanwhile will stand by his view that those who make outlandish statements must be held accountable.

The big issue being pushed is whether Churchill should continue to be employed by the University of Colorado. The current Governor, Bill Owens, is pushing for his dismissal based on his outlandish comments (Owens is considered a possible republican candidate for the White House in 2008). The University of Colorado Board of Regents is now doing a month-long investigation of Churchill’s academic standards. Sadly, this is not enough time, a thorough review should take at least four times as long involving all his work produced since coming to the university as well as any themes he pushed during class. Scholarship must be the only issue examined. In that way freedom of speech is protected.