9-11 Outrage: Hamilton College, Ward Churchill, and Jerry Springer

[The following article was written by an alumnus of Hamilton College protesting the College’s recent decision to invite a radical Ward Churchill to speak on campus. Hamilton invited Churchill to speak in support of an essay he wrote saying that America needed more 9-11s, and comparing the people killed at the Trade Center to war criminal Adolph Eichmann.]

First, Nancy Rabinowitz invited Susan Rosenberg to teach "Resistance Memoirs: Writing, Identity and Change," a month-long, seminar as part of the Kirkland Project's "artist- and activist-in-residence" program. Susan, formerly of the Weather Underground, had been sentenced in 1984 to 58 years in jail for, among other things, possessing more than 700 pounds of explosives "with intent to kill and injure." (She committed numerous other crimes that the prosecutors chose not to prosecute simply because it looked like she would spend the rest of her life in jail on the explosives charge. Susan was released, not because she was exonerated of crimes for which she was convicted, but because President Clinton pardoned her on his last day in office. For more details on her extensive criminal history, see http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005979….)

Susan's qualifications to teach the course (apart from a life of crime): writing an unpublished memoir and getting a correspondence degree in writing, both done as she paid a fraction of her debt to society. Oh, and of course there's Susan's pedigree and a connection with Nancy and her husband. Susan grew up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the daughter of a dentist, attended the exclusive Walden School, and made the obligatory trip to Cuba as teen to participate in a "Youth Work Brigade." Her chief cohort in crime during her time the Weather Underground was Kathy Boudin. Boudin's father and Nancy's father-in-law are named partners in the same New York City law firm: Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky, and Lieberman. (Family ties run strong in the Rabinowitz clan: Nancy's husband, Peter, teaches with his wife in Hamilton's Comparative Literature Department.)

Ultimately, the firestorm surrounding Susan's selection prompted her to withdraw. In an e-mail message, she wrote that she withdrew because "the atmosphere of such organized right-wing intimidation from a small group of students and faculty" would not be productive. But her selection was opposed by more that just a select few, and it will have ramifications that extend far beyond Nancy's burgeoning reputation for poor judgment. According to a December 10, 2004, article in The Spectator, Dick Tantillo, Vice President for Communication and Development, stated that "scores of national media markets" portrayed Susan's hiring "in a negative light"; that hundreds of alumni, parents, and friends of the college had contacted it to express their disapproval; that many of them threatened to refuse to contribute to the college; and that the losses could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Annual Fund. Dean of Admission Monica Inzer told The Spectator that hundreds of prospective applicants or their families contacted the college to say that they were no longer considering Hamilton because of Rosenberg's selection.

Now, as if she hasn't done enough damage, Nancy is at it again. This time she and her followers at the Kirkland Project have invited Ward Churchill to speak on his internet essay, "Some People Push Back." You may remember Ward's piece; it received a great deal of attention in the media shortly after 9-11. In the work, Ward not only invokes the metaphor that America's chickens had come home to roost; while rescue workers were still sifting through the rubble of the Trade Center and Pentagon looking for survivors, Ward branded the victims of 9-11 "little Eichmanns" (referring to Adolph Eichmann, the notorious German war criminal convicted and executed by Israel for his role in the Holocaust).

Ward's essay brims with vitriol. (The entire essay is at http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html.) His admiration shows through he writes about the terrorists responsible for the carnage on 9-11: "They finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course. That they waited to do so ... more than anything is a testament to their patience and restraint." They "manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives." The military and civilian workers killed and maimed at the Pentagon were not "innocent civilians": "The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple." And the persons killed at the Trade Center-the poor wretches forced to choose between leaping to their deaths or being incinerated, those crushed when the buildings collapsed-Ward argues they weren't "innocent" either: "They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire...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." In Ward's distorted reality, the carnage wrought on September 11 is not terror; it is justice.

Ward's field of expertise is Native American issues. If he were asked to speak at Hamilton on those issues, I would not be troubled. But Nancy is not asking him to speak on his scholarly writings or anything else related to his field of expertise. Nancy, is inviting Ward to speak simply because he is controversial (and, of course, because his radical political agenda happens to coincide with hers).

Certain infants, I am told, have an urge to put their fingers in electrical sockets. Most outgrow this penchant. But Nancy appears to be one of those rare individuals in whom the fascination persists into adulthood. She looks for the most charged outlet that she can find (always "left," as opposed to "positive" or "negative"), and then grabs the contact-even when she's been zapped before. What's more annoying, Nancy has a habit of insisting that everyone else connected to Hamilton hold her hand each time she tests the current. I wonder when Nancy will finally smarten up-and when the others at Hamilton will stop holding her hand if she doesn't.

Some Logic 101 for Nancy and her ilk: one cannot validly conclude that, because some intellectual messages are controversial, all controversial messages are intellectual. When individuals are selected for academic programs simply because they are controversial, you end up with the Jerry Springer Show-not an "academic" program in any meaningful sense of the word. (A prediction: Unless it happens to be boycotted, Ward's speech will end up looking much like Jerry Springer.) And, we've already had some very Jerry-Springer-like programs at Hamilton. Consider, Annie Sprinkle's program on campus. In a recent column in The Wall Street Journal, Roger Kimball notes that, in 2002, the "pornography star and performance artist came to Hamilton to regale students and members of the local community about the proper use of sexual appliances."

The College has become a laughing stock. In 2001, we had the visiting chemistry professor who preyed upon desperate couples and bilked investors as she tried to clone a baby for a group believing in aliens. In 2002, the college president resigned after admitting plagiarism. (To make matters worse, the Board of Trustees then proceeded to name an endowed chair after him.) In the last year, Hamilton has made headlines with the Susan Rosenberg fiasco, had two freshmen cocaine dealers featured in a June Village Voice article, and now looks forward to another media onslaught on the Ward Churchill invitation. I feel sorry for those members of the faculty who still care about the College; they deserve better. And I pity the students who must someday venture into the real world with this utterly avoidable millstone around their necks.

I'm surprised that a Colgate graduate, often recognized as Hamilton's rival and at-times collaborative school, would denigrate the school to such extent. My previous comment was simply a response to the claim that students at Hamilton are neither hard-working nor to be trusted as academics.

The speaker initially said he/she would not trust a degree issued from Hamilton; as I will hopefully attain one of these degrees, I took offense. I believe we at Hamilton work just as hard, or harder, than our brother liberal arts schools.

To address the question of what I, as a Hamilton student, think about the controversy, I believe that in concept hearing Ward Churchill speak would be interesting (in the way it's interesting to hear any radical/opposing viewpoint). However, I think extending an invitation to him was neither prudent nor logical. Although Hamilton is an institute of higher learning promoting free speech, I do not think it's always wise to exercise this option.

Although, like anywhere, there are radicals on campus who care only of free speech and the "right" to hear Churchill, I assure you that there are many of us who agree with what most of you are saying. It seems unfair to condemn the entire student population because of the choices of our administration.

I'm surprised that a Colgate graduate, often recognized as Hamilton's rival and at-times collaborative school, would denigrate the school to such extent

Please provide a cite or quote in which I denigrate Hamilton College, Clinton, NY, or Utica Club beer.

Don't be too tough on the Hamilton grads. (I am one, so I guess I have a vested interest....) If you could see the alumni posts on the College web site (which the public unfortunately does not have access to--"free speech"?) you would see that most of the messages eviscerate the administration and Rabinowitz for inviting Churchill/Rosenberg. In addition, a number of the faculty and many of the students have been very outspoken in their criticism of the selection of these individuals. The school clearly has problems, but we shouldn't paint every Hamiltonian with a broad brush simply because of the president and some leftist professors. If we were to adopt that reasoning, every American would be tainted by virtue of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy's misdeeds. (And I certainly want no part of them!)

Did you note the description of their site concerning Fox News: "We're eight middle-aged citizens who believe a viable democracy depends upon viable media. Read more in our manifesto"? "Manifesto"?! Gee, where have I heard that before?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.