Posted on 02/11/2005 5:23:01 PM PST by kellynla
Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who compared World Trade Center victims to Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann, will be allowed to speak, as planned, at the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater on March 1.
The school's chancellor said the decision to let Churchill speak was repugnant but necessary under First Amendment principles of free speech.
The decision Thursday sparked outrage among Wisconsin lawmakers, who said they would ask the UW system president to block the speech.
UW-Whitewater chancellor Jack Miller said in a statement he decided to honor an invitation for Churchill to speak at the campus, 40 miles southeast of Madison. But he laid out requirements he said must be met to ensure the speech goes off as planned, including assurances the university can guarantee the safety of the campus, visitors and Churchill.
Oh I know what you're saying and he should be allowed to speak all he wants, the more the better!
I just don't think he should profit from it from our tax dollars while he's doing it at 100K a year plus speaking fees and expenses!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Oooo, that's a good idea!
I hope he gets more coverage and I hope he gets endorsements from the Demonrats. It will show Americans what the left truly stands for and alienate them from everyday citizens even more.
Jack Miller
Chancellor
Mailing Address
HY 400
800 West Main Street
Whitewater, WI 53190
Office Phone
(262) 472-1918
millerjw@uww.edu
Thank you!
Now let's get busy! LOL
Due to the extremely high volume of comments regarding the Ward Churchill controversy, university officials are unable to personally respond to the electronic mail we are receiving. Please understand that are trying to be as open as possible regarding the news and issues surrounding this controversial visit by posting updates, as they happen, at:
http://www.uww.edu/npa/news_releases/story.php?id=691
Thank you for your input on this difficult controversy.
"The school's chancellor said the decision to let Churchill speak was repugnant but necessary under First Amendment principles of free speech."
What First Amendment is he referring to exactly? I am not aware of anything in the Bill of Rights that says universities are obliged to invite people of any kind to speak (including people who spout hate speech). All it says is that "Congress shall make no law" that interferes with free speech. Congress has not made any such law and this guy is perfectly free to get up on a soap box and speak. But he has no inherent right to be provided with a forum at a university.
Why don't these supposedly "educated" university administrators learn what is in the Constitution? Shouldn't they have learned this in 8th grade?
All I can do is keep the pressure on and get him cancelled...
like we did at Hamilton College in Clinton, NY
I wonder if they would let Chruchill carry a gun while he speaks, thereby honoring both the first and second amendments.
U of W response....
Released: February 10, 2005
Contact: Brian Mattmiller
(262) 472-1194
churchill.response@uww.edu
Chancellor Decides to Continue Ward Churchill Lecture
Statement by Jack Miller, Chancellor of UW-Whitewater
February 10, 2005
A tremendous amount has been written and spoken about an invitation issued by a student organization to University of Colorado ethnic studies Professor Ward Churchill to speak at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater campus March 1 about “Racism Against the American Indian.”
This invitation was issued six months ago as part of a four-speaker Native American lecture series reflecting diverse viewpoints on the Native American experience. Whether to continue planning for his presentation, to rescind his invitation, or to delay his presentation pending other investigations is related to a complex range of issues and to great passions. It is also a decision that I accept at the outset will be met with much dissent and cynicism, regardless of the outcome. Personally, I find the decision to be repugnant because of the offensive nature of his remarks.
There is no need to review or attempt interpretation of the offensive passages made by Churchill regarding the victims of 9/11 attacks. They are available for all to read. These comments, which some people—including some who lost loved ones, family members, and colleagues on 9/11—would call “hate” speech are obviously deeply hurtful. This is not to negate or criticize the professor’s larger argument about violence begetting violence. Reading the commentary does explain what has fanned the flames to a level that has prompted security issues at other campuses.
Some people paint the decision as a simple matter of academic freedom or First Amendment rights. Clearly those principles are involved, but such a simplistic view ignores factors such as safety concerns; a lack of obligation to invite, pay and provide a forum to any guest; and the justifiable outcry against those who indulge in hateful speech against victims and the invoking of the specter of the Holocaust. Others say no one should be subjected to such unpopular and perhaps despicable commentary, thus trivializing the role of the academy as a place where all forms of commentary can be heard and challenged intellectually.
I believe there is no one “correct” decision, despite simplistic views to the contrary. In fact, I have made related decisions in the past on our campus, and have noted that critical reactions are often defined by the politics of the issue. For example, on one occasion I vigorously defended some of our faculty who were under siege from alumni and donors for remarks they considered anti-American immediately following 9/11. On another occasion, numerous members of the UW-Whitewater community demanded that I dismiss a student who appeared briefly in “blackface” during a Homecoming skit. I did not. Some of the same people who lauded the first decision decried the second, and vice versa. I do not raise this fact to complain, but to illustrate why I have worked to make an informed decision, not the popular or politically expedient one.
I believe that it was appropriate for the Native American Cultural Awareness Association (NACAA) to have extended invitations to Mr. Churchill and others to speak on Native American issues.
First, our Native American community in particular, and countless others in general, appreciate being challenged by controversial ideas.
Second, I have faith that our faculty, staff, students, and community members are able to decide for themselves whether to listen and, more importantly, to critically assess the message of Mr. Churchill. Certainly he has appeared without incident in many venues in the past. According to today’s Chronicle of Higher Education, Churchill has lectured with virtually no media attention since 9/11 at numerous universities, including Swarthmore, Arizona State, Michigan State, Brown and Syracuse. Although his scholarship is being questioned and is now under review by his employer, that does not negate his status as a frequent speaker on Native American issues.
Third, the invitation was extended six months ago before virtually everyone became aware of what I believe to be his grossly inappropriate comments.
Fourth, our campus is no stranger to playing host to a wide range of viewpoints. For example, Russell Means, inaugural director of the American Indian Movement (AIM), for whom Ward Churchill once wrote speeches, appeared last year on our campus without fanfare or incident. And from a completely different political perspective, I attended a campus lecture just this week by an Evangelical Christian minister.
STIPULATIONS FOR THE DECISION:
After extensive consultation with individuals both inside and outside the university community, and with the support of the sponsoring student group, I hoped to be able to continue the invitation, but with six stipulations. In short, I side with the First Amendment principles, and with my faith in our faculty, staff, students, and community members as to whether to listen to Mr. Churchill and how to judge his comments. I say this knowing we are under no obligation to extend him an invitation, and while holding the personal feeling that his comments on 9/11 victims were despicable. Finally, I know the decision will be repugnant to some.
The six stipulations to be met are as follows:
1. Most importantly, the university must be convinced that the safety and security of our campus community, our visitors and Mr. Churchill are not compromised in any way by the lecture, which has heightened risk at other campuses.
2. No state-funded, general purpose revenue (taxpayer money allocated by the state to the university) will be used to pay the speaker’s honorarium or travel expenses. Further, such funds will not be used to provide a free-of-charge venue on campus or to provide additional security. All funding for this event will come from either private gifts or student fees which have been allocated by the Student University Fee Allocation Committee (SUFAC) and guided by the following campus policy: “When a University requires student fees and creates a mechanism (the SUFAC Committee) for extracurricular speech, it (SUFAC and the university) may not prefer some views to others.” On the matter of private funding, I have promised to help raise funds and plan to make a personal contribution to defray the cost.
3. No one will be “forced” to be in the audience. Often, guest lectures are populated by students who are meeting a class requirement. Here, I will rely on the compassion and good sense of our faculty and staff to provide alternative assignments for those who have been personally hurt or offended by the previously mentioned commentary of Mr. Churchill.
4. A response was requested of Mr. Churchill to my attached letter, which states my opinion of his “little Eichmanns” characterization of some of those killed in the World Trade Center (and elsewhere) as part of the 9/11 attacks. I gave him one example of the hurt our campus saw and heard first-hand from one of our alumni who lost 176 corporate “family members” in the attacks. For the complete text of my letter, click here. For Mr. Churchill‘s response, click here.
5. The university recognizes the need for alternative public forums and will organize an event that will provide dissenting points of view. I am confident that many people from the campus community will step forward with ideas and that we will bring such speakers to campus.
6. The outcome of a review by UC-Boulder of Churchill’s scholarly credentials, while unlikely to be complete prior to his March 1 visit, could also have a bearing on our decision.
MY DECISION:
On Thursday, February 10th, after extensive discussion with all parties involved in the lecture, I have made the decision to continue with the invitation extended to Mr. Churchill, provided all of the above stipulations have been met. That being said, I also recognize that circumstances could change as the event draws closer, such as issues related to security, that could force us to revisit the decision.
Finally, I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support and input from people both on and off campus who have helped with this decision-making process, even while recognizing that this decision may be personally unpopular with some of them.
- Brian Mattmiller churchill.response@uww.edu
Special Topics
03-05 Budget
University Outreach
News Archives
Current Releases
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
WOW...what a Putz!
Agreed. He Does have his right to say whatever. But there is no given right to do it at the public's expense.
That's good isn't it? ;)
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.