Posted on 02/10/2005 3:21:02 PM PST by Lorianne
The recent controversy over the writings of Ward Churchill, radical activist, faux Indian, and tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, raises a number of serious academic issues — which, let me underscore, does not mean that Churchill himself is in any way serious. On the contrary, Churchill is as unserious as anyone ever paid to stand in front of a classroom, an intellectual featherweight whose ideas are less politically scandalous than buffoonishly wrongheaded. Case in point is his assertion that the victims of the World Trade Center attack got what was coming to them: "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."
Churchill's own attempt to clarify what he meant by this is telling: "I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as 'Nazis.' What I said was that the 'technocrats of empire' working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of 'little Eichmanns.' Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies."
To make sense of Churchill's clarification, a reader has to accept the following premises: 1) the United States government is actively and intentionally engaged in genocide; 2) the hijackers, contrary to their own claims, were attempting to defend individual freedom rather than advance a totalitarian spiritual regime; 3) the ideological agenda of the hijackers represents the true aspirations of the people on whose behalf they claim to act.
Each of these premises is false based on a preponderance of evidence. But that understates the point; all three are so utterly false that failure to recognize their falsehood, in effect, betrays a cognitive disability. Yet I'd estimate ten percent of American college professors — and I'm low-balling that figure — would accept them as probably or at least partially true. (If you substitute "corporate capitalists" for "the United States government" in the first premise — i.e. "Corporate capitalists are actively and intentionally engaged in genocide" — assent among college faculty probably rises to 25 percent.) These are credentialed adults who are initially hired to instruct, and who are eventually tenured to profess...yet they're professionally, stupendously, tenaciously, defiantly, demonstrably wrong.
That is the gist of the problem.
If we take as axiomatic the principle that colleges exist in order to pursue and disseminate the truth, it follows that no accredited mathematics department would employ a teacher who denied, say, that base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal; that no physics department would employ a teacher who denied the force of gravity; that no chemistry department would employ a teacher who denied that protons and neutrons are found in the nuclei of atoms; that no biology department would employ a teacher who denied that green plants convert light energy into chemical energy by photosynthesis. The hard sciences, in other words, are bound in their fidelity to truth not only by traditional logic and empirical evidence but by a demand for coherence within a framework of what is already known. Faculty in hard sciences seek to push the envelope of knowledge, not to "deconstruct" it. (Deconstruct v.t. To affect intellectual depth by teasing out secondary and tertiary senses of a term until it belies its original meaning.) It is exceedingly rare, therefore, to find a professor in a hard science espousing irrational, unsupportable theories.
Not so in the social sciences. To be sure, no history department would, in the current academic climate, employ a teacher who openly argued that the Holocaust never happened. But this is a matter of political expediency, not material certainty. On the contrary, many history departments employ teachers steeped in postmodern thinking, who hold, for example, that the perception of a reality existing independently of thought and language is illusory, that "reality" is in fact a linguistic construct of the phenomena of subjective experience which is continually adjusted in response to a fluid social consensus. But if there's no such thing as an independent reality, then there can be no reality check. There's no test for truth. And that, my friends, is Holocaust denial — one step removed. Postmodern thought has taken root across the social sciences, spawning all manner of loopy theoretical posturing in history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, political science, and even philosophy itself.
Still further down the epistemological food chain come literature and art, pseudo-disciplines hoist on the ouija-board wonkery of aesthetic judgment. The truth value of a work is gauged neither by correspondence with an independent reality nor even, for the last quarter century, by it coherence within a canonical framework; rather, truth value is a function of whether the work pleases the teacher. Subjectivity, therefore, rules. Literature and art departments often employ faculty members whose theories are not just at variance with one another but are mutually exclusive. It is not unusual, nowadays, for two students at the same college to sign up for the same survey course the same semester with two different professors and discover they're learning nothing in common.
But the epistemological nadir of any university is found in the wacky world of ethnic and gender studies: black studies, Africana studies, Chicano studies, Latino studies, Puerto Rican studies, Middle Eastern studies, Native American studies, women's studies, gay and lesbian studies, et al. The suggestion that "studying" is involved in any of these subjects is laughable; they are quasi-religious advocacy groups whose curricula run the gamut from historical wish fulfillment (the ancient Egyptians were black; the U.S. Constitution was derived from the Iroquois Nation) to political axe grinding (the Israelis are committing genocide against the Palestinians; the U.S. is committing genocide against the people of Cuba) to gynocentric self-help (reasoning from verifiable data is a tool of male domination, to which the experiential impressions of women are a necessary antidote) to circumstantial special pleading (Lincoln was gay because, well, he was a nice guy; Hitler, not so nice, therefore not gay). Contesting the status quo is the raison d'etre of these departments. No idea is beyond the pale — except, of course, the suggestion that the status quo might somehow be valid.
Which returns us to Ward Churchill, professor of ethnic studies, University of Colorado. In one sense, he's like a thousand other burnt-out refugees from the 1960s who avoided a full-time job long enough to acquire multiple university degrees. Along the way, however, he convinced lots of people that he was a Cherokee Indian — apparently on the basis of an honorary tribal membership — and thus tapped into the vast reservoir of white liberal guilt flowing through the halls of academia. Most critically, he found outlets to publish crypto-Marxist rants and thereby distinguished himself from the vast majority of his invincibly ignorant peers. That publishing record, in turn, allowed him to command not only his tenured professorship, but activist committee posts and lucrative speaking engagements at campuses nationwide.
So who published Ward Churchill?
Well, there's AK Press. Publisher's mission statement:
AK Press is a worker run book publisher and distributor organized around anarchist principles. . . . Our goal is to make available radical books and other materials, titles that are published by independent presses, not the corporate giants, titles with which you can make a positive change in the world.
Then there's South End Press. Publisher's mission statement:
Since our founding in 1977, we have tried to meet the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change. . . . In this way, we hope to give expression to a wide diversity of democratic social movements and to provide an alternative to the products of corporate publishing.
Finally, there's City Lights Books. Manuscript submission guidelines:
City Lights Books is a publisher of fiction, essays, memoirs, translations, poetry, and books on social and political issues. We publish a dozen new books a year and are committed to providing the finest works of vanguard literature and oppositional politics.
In other words, Churchill hooked up with like-minded lefties, networked himself into book contracts, parlayed these into academic prestige and political name recognition — and thus a wholly unserious man who says wholly unserious things wound up being taken very seriously. In a more rational world, Churchill would be an amateur conspiracy theorist with a chip on his shoulder, the type who spends an hour on hold with CSPAN to spew 15 seconds of venom before Brian Lamb cuts him off.
In our world, Churchill is a cause célébre.
So what's to be done with him?
The fact that he has tenure must, I'm afraid, be taken into account. Firing him, or forcing him to resign, might be morally satisfying but would be a tactical error. It would confer martyr status on him, and it would be interpreted by his students, and by Churchill himself, as punishment for speaking the truth to power. Besides, the fault here does not lie with Churchill; he's a symptom, not a disease. The fault lies, generally, with the sick academic culture in which he has thrived, and, specifically, with the administrative weasels at the University of Colorado who have repeatedly rewarded his dubious critical achievements. What should be done with Churchill, therefore, is...nothing. His notoriety should stand as an ongoing monument to the decay of intellectual standards in higher education, and his professorship as an ongoing monument to the intellectual cowardice of the school which hired and tenured him.
Thus, inadvertently, Ward Churchill might teach us all a lesson
To all, thanks for all the links and suggestions. Daunting sometimes, isn't it?
I attended Stanford and mrs tom h attended Hanover College, yet we are doubtful that our children will attend our alma maters because of the rampant liberalism.
I have been cataloguing possibilities -- we are a Christian family so you will find some of these on the list:
Hillsdale College, Hillsdale MI -- the Stanford of the right.
Patrick Henry College, Leesburg VA -- most of the Bush Administration interns come from here.
Grove City, Grove City PA -- famous for rejecting matching Federal funding.
Thomas Acquinas College, Ojai CA
Ronald Reagan University -- planned for somewhere in Tennessee.
There will be more. But even age 18 is too young for inflicting liberalism on children.
Excellent take on Churchill,
except this unwanted scrutiny seems to be bringing to light that indeed the ethics studies professor is less than ethical, beyond the issue of his native American status
I did hear that UC was going to review all his writings because it appears Mr. Churchill has a little problem with plagiarism and making up facts.......
gasp.....gee he's seem like such an honest grounded in reality kind of guy, NOT
of course I hear cheating and plagiarism are no biggy in the left leaning world of academia anymore - I refer to the big Harvard Law cheating school scandal as one example
I am hearing more and more about teachers who give their students failing grades for plagiarism and their useless parents browbeating even public school and high school principals until they reverse the failing grade - in my day, my parents would have punished me more severely than the school for such indiscretions, of course I would have never even dared nor considered cheating in school.....then again I was smart so I guess I didn't have to cheat, LOL
I remember a teacher in the US quit last year because the kids were told right at the time of the assignment, you will fail if you are caught plagiarizing off the internet
sure enough a bunch of kids did ( please children footnotes are not that hard - footnoting and paraphrasing are not difficult skills) and their parents moaned and groaned so the kids didn't get a failing grade, by order of the principal so the teacher quit because the administration didn't back her up and she couldn't countenance the bad message being sent......
ain't it ironic, the left leaning world of academia is in fact actively creating the next generation of Enron executives.......and NY Times journalists, oops.....
Hear hear. Cloaking themselves in the credibility of science. I think of Freud and Boas.
seems like you have strong values and if you instilled them properly they shouldn't have a problem......Hell, I went to UC Berkeley which you going to Stanford know that both those universites are outstanding academic institutions which is why I went. Sure I was surrounded by liberalism but it never was as bad as the press would have you believe, and it never dented my entrenched conservative values and viewpoints learned from my excellent parents. I just hate ot see otherwise smart kids not go to great universities cause they are "scared" of the liberals....is 18 also young to inflict conservatism on them also.....
It should be ETHNIC STUDIES.
Bump for Patriot's History.
"Has anyone said this guy can't teach a classroom on Indian History or Ethnography? Maybe he does it well."
Somewhere around here is the thread on how he made up the history of germ warfare against the Indians by the US Army. If by "does it well" you mean "makes it up as he goes along," then you may be onto something.
HEHE. This guy "bumps" us just by opening his mouth. Honestly, people who would have thought we were "conservative" listen to Churchill and think, "these guys are downright centrists!!!"
I hear you ... maybe I am imparting some of my own insecurity to the situation. I had strong Republican parents also, but I was a searching young man and fell in with bad crowds during my time at Stanford. [Academically I did fine but I regret many of my actions and my lack of direction.] I saw lots of nice kids with Midwestern values become California-ized after six months at Stanford. Young adults with strong character like you will thrive anywhere. Unfortunately, I think most 18-year-olds are on the other side of the divide.
Nice work.
Churchill is just a symptom of the disease. The disease itself is minority studies departments, that really don't have a core discipline, just fob off other disciplines, such as they are, to focus on certain groups, and tend to attract nut cases and folks not interested in scholarship, but with an agenda.
The professors at my small private college make less than the town's PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS and have to do more work than the clowns at the big universities since the departments are smaller.
They do it because they love kids and are willing to struggle to make ends meet. I have great respect for my professors. They know there stuff inside and out; they aren't teaching here because they were not good enough for a state university. They are here because they believe in the mission of small Christian colleges.
People like Churchill get into the big universities because they love getting lots of MOOLAH for teaching a couple classes and getting lots of research breaks that really aren't that stressful time-wise.
He can shove his cash up his a$&.
ick.....been making typos all night.
THEIR stuff, not there. Geez.
I wasn't going to do so earlier, but I am thinking I may review your book for my college newspaper. Yeah, we do not have many history majors here, but the college paper is printed in the town paper, and I bet the townspeople would be interested in getting your work.
Churchill doesn't even have a doctorate and is making almost 100 grand, which is outrageous.
"B.A., M.A., Sangaman State University
Communication"
That is shocking. His degree isn't even in anthropology or anything related even slightly to ethnic studies. I will have to let my HG professors know. They only get in the 40 thousand range and that is with doctorates in history. How sick.
"Has anyone said this guy can't teach a classroom on Indian History or Ethnography? Maybe he does it well."
I believe that would be a false assumption Sherm. Anyone who interprets recent history as he does and revises past history as he does, and has espoused the political position that he has, quite simply could not teach anythig well. This man indoctrinates--he doesn't teach.
Oh--forgot--he is said to have taught the Weathermen how to make bombs, but don't know if he did it well.
vaudine
Mine: Sterling College
www.sterling.edu
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.