Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Campus protests visit by CU prof
denverpost ^ | 1/27/05

Posted on 01/27/2005 3:10:44 PM PST by swilhelm73

Clinton, N.Y. - A University of Colorado professor who suggested the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were justified and those who died in the World Trade Center were not innocent victims has ignited protests on an upstate New York college campus where he's been invited to speak.

Ward Churchill, an expert on indigenous issues and chairman of the ethnic studies program at CU-Boulder, will take part in a panel discussion Feb. 3 at Hamilton College.

Administrators defended Churchill's appearance but admitted his views are considered "repugnant and disparaging" by many people.

"Hamilton, like any institution committed to the free exchange of ideas, invites to its campus people of diverse opinions, often controversial," the school said in a statement from college spokesman Michael DeBraggio.

Advertisement

In a treatise titled "Some People Push Back," written after the bombings, Churchill asserted the nearly 3,000 people killed at the World Trade Center worked for "the mighty engine of profit" but chose to ignore their role.

"True enough, they were civilians of a sort," he wrote. "But innocent? Gimme a break."

Churchill went on to describe the World Trade Center victims as "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolph Eichmann, who carried out Hitler's plan to exterminate Europe's Jews during World War II.

"I think the professor's words are repugnant and plain looney," said Colorado state Sen. Shawn Mitchell. Last year Mitchell, a Broomfield Republican, pushed legislation to protect the political views of conservative college students.

"It's unfortunate any group anywhere is interested in what he has to say," Mitchell said. "But I hope their response is to defeat his message with a better message of their own. I hope people have the good sense to stay away from this hatemonger, but if they feel compelled to respond, they should answer with speech and not obstruction and physical interference."

Churchill was also at the center of controversy in Denver when he and others were arrested after protesting the city's Columbus Day Parade because they believed it was degrading to American Indians.

He was acquitted last week of failing to listen to police officers who had asked the protesters to get out of the way of the parade.

The invitation to Churchill has split the campus of 1,700 Hamilton students, as well as the faculty.

Art history professor Steven Goldberg said it was "morally outrageous" to bring Churchill to campus. History professor Robert Paquette called it "an act of utter irresponsibility."

Jessica Miraglia, 19, a sophomore from Reading, Pa., created a poster that read: "You don't have to agree with them in order to learn from them."


TOPICS: US: Colorado; US: New York; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: cuboulder; hamiltoncollege; highereducation; tenuredradicals; wardchurchill

1 posted on 01/27/2005 3:10:45 PM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

"Hamilton, like any institution committed to the free exchange of ideas"

As long as they are Socialist ones.


2 posted on 01/27/2005 3:16:41 PM PST by Betaille (Harry Potter is a Right-Winger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

There is a free flow of ideas on campuses... between status quo socialist ideas and more radical socialist ideas


3 posted on 01/27/2005 3:17:50 PM PST by Betaille (Harry Potter is a Right-Winger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

Good f'ing grief. I just don't get it, how does this guy keep his job? How does this type of "essay" contribute anything to education?

They should put this as*hole in a room full of New York cops/firefighters and let him read it.


4 posted on 01/27/2005 3:21:48 PM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

"You don't have to agree with them in order to learn from them."

Oooooh Jessica! The old "Character doesn't count" routine. I wonder if she'd have any problem learning from a KKK grand poobah.


5 posted on 01/27/2005 3:26:01 PM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

If he can defend his ideas he should be willing to let members of the audience come armed.


6 posted on 01/27/2005 3:29:50 PM PST by muawiyah (Egypt didn't invent planning and zoning either, but they did discover trigonometry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Now that is the best idea I've heard all day.


7 posted on 01/27/2005 3:31:35 PM PST by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

>>>> Clinton, N.Y. <<<<

Figures

Is a punch in the nose ok yet?


8 posted on 01/27/2005 3:34:51 PM PST by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
""True enough, they were civilians of a sort," he wrote. "But innocent? Gimme a break.""

Words fail me.

Of course, had he been killed, he would have been an innocent civilian. But then, he wouldn't be here to argue the point.

What a shame.
9 posted on 01/27/2005 3:39:00 PM PST by green pastures
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

As stupid as this guy apparently is, what educational benefit is expected from him showing up on campus? I mean, I believe in free speech, but I wouldn't want to pay someone to teach my kids idiocy.


10 posted on 01/27/2005 3:59:30 PM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
I was thinking, "This guy sounds like a major-league d-ckhead." Then I saw his picture (below) and confirmed that not only IS he a d-ckhead, but he looks like a d-ckhead, too.

He's an embarrassment to the good name Churchill.

A good Freeping might be in order. Here's his contact information:

Ward L Churchill

Ethnic Studies

University of Colorado at Boulder

339 UCB

Boulder, CO 80309-0339

Ward.Churchill@Colorado.EDU

Office: 303-492-8852

11 posted on 01/27/2005 4:19:11 PM PST by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tom h

He's an embarrassment to the good name Churchill.

That was my thought too. I have so much respect for Winston Churchill as a historical figure (personally, I think he was the greatest political leader of the 20th Century), just the name Churchill attached to a quote will make me stop and take notice. Too bad this piece of human trash sullies that great name by his mere existence. Maybe he should stand before a group of victims families when call them "little Eichmanns". But we all know that coward will only spout such garbage from the safety of a liberal college campus.


12 posted on 01/27/2005 4:44:09 PM PST by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tom h

This doofas is essentially a walking Saturday Night Live skit. Thanks for posting the pictures. They really made a world of difference when I could put a face to his loony words. He's SOOOOOO serious! The best thing to do with a leftist kook like this is to give him maximum media exposure. I even hope he gets on television. Yeah dude, keep "helping" your cause. BUHWAHAHA!!


13 posted on 01/27/2005 5:14:51 PM PST by SIDENET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

"the free exchange of ideas"

it's more like:

a free exchange of emotions

on university campi today

they gave up thinking a long time ago.


14 posted on 01/27/2005 5:19:19 PM PST by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: everyone

As a 2004 Hamilton alum I can say that Hamilton is actually a conservative campus. The students are fairly apathetic but there are several conservative professors who are the ones causing the stink about Churchill coming to campus. So to joke about "socialist ideas" being the accepted norm on college camuses in general is one thing, but Hamilton is conservative and "socialist ideas" are far from the accepted norm at Hamilton.

Thats said, my understanding is that over the past 20 years Churchill has spoke at over 200 colleges and universities and there has never been any controversy like this over his invitation to speak. The reason you are even talking about this now and know about it is only because the conservative professors at Hamilton have alterted the AP to the controversy that they themselves started. The conservative professors at Hamilton started this controversy by posting around the campus a flier they drafted which equates Churchill to a terrorist. In response, Jessica posted her fliers around campus stating that "You don't have to agree with them to learn from them." That is all that happened at Hamilton. There were no "protests" to Churchill coming to campus as the name of the article would suggest. There were just some fliers.

My point is that not all colleges are liberal and that even though Hamilton is conservative this "controversy" is really not that big of a deal in light of Churchill's track record of previous speaking engagements. The truth is that, while Hamilton is conservative, the school does a good job of bringing both liberal and conservative speakers to campus. During my time at Hamilton the speakers who visited included liberal former president Bill Clinton, conservative former NYC mayor Rudy Guliani, conservative radical Walter Williams, and conservative radical David Horowitz. Churchill and other liberal speakers just balance things out. What bothers Jessica, I think, is that Walter Williams and David Horowitz are just as conservative as Churchill is liberal (if that even make sense) but there was little or no controversy over their arrival on campus. We can learn from every speaker, liberal or conservative, no matter how radical they are.


15 posted on 01/30/2005 2:58:38 PM PST by eb35 (this is over hyped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
http://www.hamilton.edu/Levitt/speakers_previous.html

They have a token conservative (even David Horowitz once) almost every year. Seriously, that's better than most.

16 posted on 01/30/2005 3:09:08 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eb35
Walter Williams and David Horowitz are just as conservative as Churchill is liberal

No they aren't. Williams and Horowitz are actually much, indeed infinitely, more liberal. They at least are liberals in some (classical) sense of the term. Churchill doesn't appear to be liberal in any sense. He's a leftist-extremist.

17 posted on 01/30/2005 3:16:25 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Here's the section of this idiot's screed that contains the comments discussed above (although you could almost cut and past randomly to find something deeply idiotic and disgusting):
 A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered "Desert Shield" in 1990, or at any of several points in between. Any way you slice it, however, if what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war – and they can – then the same is true of every US "overflight' of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.
 
 That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.
 
 They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."
 
 There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. 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.

Full text here.

18 posted on 01/30/2005 3:28:09 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eb35; nicollo
Hello, fellow Hamiltonian, and welcome to FR.

Glad you signed up today to push out the usual Womyn's Center line ("students...apathetic...Hamilton...conservative...can learn from...liberal...radical").

And, no, Ward Churchill isn't the same as Rudy Giuliani or an african-american guest commentator from the PBS Nightly Business Report.

Class of '88

19 posted on 01/30/2005 3:39:18 PM PST by hedgie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eb35; Stultis
What bothers Jessica, I think, is that Walter Williams and David Horowitz are just as conservative as Churchill is liberal (if that even make sense) but there was little or no controversy over their arrival on campus.

I'll have to disagree. To mirror this buffoon, Williams/Horowitz would have to be arguing something along the lines of the people at OKC deserved what they got at Tim McVeigh's hands...
20 posted on 01/30/2005 5:15:03 PM PST by swilhelm73 (Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hedgie; eb35

Doubt we'll hear back from our friend... 'Tis beyond lame to say that bringing in Walter Williams or Horowitz is a fair balance to this Churchill fool. There's no relativity in this: what the guy is saying is insane and ought be neither heard nor endorsed by the college.

Hedgie, do you remember the "Dirty Duck" controversy at Hamilton, your freshman year, I think? The campus film society set up to show this mildly pornographic animation about a duck that just wanted to get laid... The womens center, the Rabinowitz types went insane and shut it down. We ran it independently, of course, and, if I recall, they held a protest.

I might point to the hypocrisy of Rabinowitz in silencing a rather horny duck while broadcasting a psychopath. But I won't. Suffice it to say that this guy is sick. Be gone and done with. The College, and eb35 here, ought quit making excuses for him.


21 posted on 01/31/2005 12:34:02 PM PST by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: eb35

"Walter Williams and David Horowitz are just as conservative as Churchill is liberal"




That is a tremendously unfair insult to Williams and Horowitz. There is no basis of comparison. Churchill is praising terrorist murderers of civilians. When did either Williams or Horowitz do that?

This is not about a sliding scale of political opinion it is about Churchill praising murderers and saying civilians deserved to die because they were part of global capitalism. How does he know they are part of global capitalism? Because of their presence in the WTC. Tell that to the widow of the waiter/window washer/secretary who died there.

Do you think Williams or Horowitz defend the killing of civilians who are Marxists?

Ridiculous.


22 posted on 01/31/2005 9:01:35 PM PST by dervish (Europe can go to Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: everyone

I have to agree with Hedgie, Churchill is not the same as Giuliani or Williams. I don’t think I ever claimed they were the same, though. My point before was that even if most colleges are predominantly liberal, at least Hamilton makes an attempt to bring both conservative and liberal speakers to campus. Hedgie is right exclude Horowitz from the list people who Churchill is not like. Giuliani is a fairly moderate conservative and Williams has some very good credentials. Many people consider Horowitz, however, to be nutty and radical, perhaps not as nutty and radical as most of the people on this site agree Churchill is. Horowitz is just on a different end of the spectrum. Williams, while radical too, was able to back up his positions with solid evidence and thoughtful reasoning. As I recall Horowitz was not nearly as graceful in his speech or reasonable in his thinking.

Dervish, Churchill is a radical. Insane? Maybe. I disagree with Churchill’s viewpoint, so does Jessica. Nonetheless, I also disagreed with much of what Williams and Horowitz had to say. I still went to hear them speak when they were on campus. It was very interesting to hear what they believe. I am sure that even though most of the people who are commenting here on FR are conservative they would still not agree with *everything* Williams or Horowitz have to say. By the same token I would guess that even the liberal people at Hamilton do not entirely agree with what Churchill has to say. When Williams came to speak about race many people took his point of view as extreme radical rightwing racism. If it was not for the fact that he is black I think most of the people present would have though he was a propagandist for the KKK. In fact despite his being black many people still thought he was a KKK propagandist (I say that in jest so don’t go after me on that line). Of course that is a misunderstanding of William’s position but if you don’t get to hear these guys speak how can you know what they really believe and what is hype? Am I saying that we misunderstand Churchill? Probably not, but we can’t know for sure unless we let his voice be heard. In academia we all too often judge one’s intelligence by how much they agree with us and I think that way of judging people can be limiting.

Dervish, if you read Churchill’s article and follow up statements you would know what he has to say about the window washers, secretaries, janitors etc. who died in the WTC.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2684392,00.html

Dervish, not all of the people who died in the WTC were capitalists and not all liberals are Marxists so it is at least a little out of line for you to ask "Do you think Williams or Horowitz defend the killing of civilians who are Marxists?"

I am not defending Churchill's position. I disagree with it just as much as you do. But if you are going to put in the time and effort to write about him here you should be open to hearing him speak at Hamilton, if for nothing more than to get a chance to formulate stronger arguments against him.

Stultis, I actually think Horowitz came to Hamilton twice, not just once. As far as I remember the College Republican’s brought Horowitz to speak at Hamilton during the 2003-2004 school year. And if the Levitt website is correct the Levitt Center brought him during the 2002-2003 school year also.


23 posted on 01/31/2005 10:32:13 PM PST by eb35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: eb35
Many people consider Horowitz, however, to be nutty and radical, perhaps not as nutty and radical as most of the people on this site agree Churchill is. Horowitz is just on a different end of the spectrum.

There you go again with your absurd equivalency. Horowitz like Churchill? Not in this lifetime. I have read, heard and spoken with Horowitz. He bears not the slightest resemblance in his humanity, moral clarity and decency to Churchill. Please show me where Horowitz shows utter contempt for the lives of civilians or soldiers? Please show me where Horowitz endorses terrorist suiciders as a legitimate means to an end?

Obviously the distorted teaching of a university that would think to bring in a person like Churchill has had its desired effect on you. It’s called values and the far left left theirs at the door. Everything/Everyone is the same right? Don’t judge anybody./sarcasm

Let me clarify one point I made. NO ONE deserved to die on 9/11 except the terrorists. That includes window washers and “corporate tools” like Bond Traders. My point was that to people like Churchill the death of admittedly non-Corporate tools is worth it for the cause anyway. Its all worth it for the cause. Stalin thought so too.

but if you don’t get to hear these guys speak how can you know what they really believe and what is hype? Am I saying that we misunderstand Churchill? Probably not, but we can’t know for sure unless we let his voice be heard.

I heard enough from the man himself to know what he believes – that the innocents of 9/11 had it coming. Why would you need to hear more? Don’t you trust your own morality and logic enough to tell yourself that is wrong? What could anyone say that would make that right? If you don’t have enough inherent morality to know the difference between right and wrong here, you are a prime candidate for Jihad. That's the kind of thinking that let's others tell them what is right and wrong. It is not religion on the left, but nonetheless a totalitarian mind set.

Dervish, not all of the people who died in the WTC were capitalists and not all liberals are Marxists so it is at least a little out of line for you to ask "Do you think Williams or Horowitz defend the killing of civilians who are Marxists?"

Huh??? I was making the point that neither Horowitz nor Williams celebrate the deaths of any civilians no matter what their political beliefs. They also do not equate ordinary people with Eichmann.

24 posted on 02/01/2005 7:48:00 PM PST by dervish (Europe can go to Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson