Revolution #006, June 19, 2005, posted at revcom.us
Asked this spring to nominate their favorite
professor, students at the University of Colorado at
Boulder overwhelmingly picked Ward Churchill. Yes.
This is the professor who's been widely attacked and
vilified in recent months for an essay he wrote in the
wake of 9/11, whose head has been called for by the
governors of two states, whose life has been
threatened, and who may lose his tenured position at
the university as a result of an ongoing investigation
on trumped-up charges.
The university alumni association, which sponsors the
Teaching Recognition Award, promptly announced that
they would withhold the award from Churchill. Given
annually for 44 years, this is the first time anyone
has heard of the award's being withheld from the
person who won it.
Meanwhile.... One reason the university could not
summarily fire Churchill from his teaching position
was that he had been granted tenure—a formal status
designed to protect professors from being fired for
their research, writing, and speech. In other words,
the purpose of academic tenure is precisely to protect
the position of thinkers and researchers who come
under political attack, as Churchill has been and
continues to be.
But for those out to get Churchill and anyone else who
dares to critique the U.S. role in the world, the
tenure process poses an obstacle. The question was
repeatedly raised in the media witch-hunt surrounding
this case: How did Ward Churchill get tenure? And what
about the whole tenure process? So in due course, the
university Board of Regents created a special
committee to review the entire tenure process at the
university. It was reported that the committee's
mission was to investigate whether the process is
"tough enough."
Now who could be expected to head such a committee?
Someone from within the university? Don't be
ridiculous! Maybe a businessman? Well, the Denver
economic development director is on the committee, but
even someone from the dog-eat-dog world of business
might still not be "tough enough." Well, then — a
military man!
In fact, the choice to head the tenure review
committee is Howell M. Estes III, former commander in
chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD) and former commander of the Air Force Space
Command, both headquartered in Cheyenne Mountain Air
Station near Colorado Springs. These are the nerve
centers of a worldwide air and space monitoring and
warning system, coordinating a global array of
satellites, radars and sensors.
At the same time, the Rocky Mountain News, an area
paper with a conservative bent, has just published the
results of its own "investigation" of charges raised
against Churchill. In a major five-part series, the
Rocky Mountain News finds him guilty (surprise!) on
all counts. Even complaints that the university had
said should not be investigated are made part of this
inquisition.
Let's look at the picture painted by these
developments. How does the university respond to the
fact that the position, reputation, and even life of a
professor are endangered for something he wrote? It
bows to pressure and investigates the professor. The
students have named him as their favorite teacher.
Then it must be forbidden to give the award to this
professor. The professor can't simply be thrown out
since he has tenure. Then the whole tenure process
must be brought under question.
Still not "tough" enough? Well, then—let's have the
tenure-review committee headed by a retired Air Force
general, a man whose job was "to enforce control of
the skies over the United States and Canada" (as
NORAD's web site boasts). Meanwhile, a conservative
newspaper blasts out with an "investigation" of its
own indicting the professor. Is the whole picture
clear enough?
A columnist for the same Rocky Mountain News raised
some sharp questions about this extensive campaign
against Churchill, which now pretends to be only about
his work and credentials as a scholar. The real story,
wrote the columnist, is about "academic freedom and
the limits of dissent," and about "those who wanted
him fired long before anyone looked at his
scholarship." Yes—it's about those things, and more.
Churchill is still under sharp attack, and the battle
over his position in the university is ongoing.
Churchill's case is a concentration point of an
aggressive and concerted effort which overall aims to
purge higher education of its radical and oppositional
thinkers, to create a climate of intimidation and
"watch what you say" in colleges and universities, and
to create institutions of indoctrination pure and
simple, where official pieties and "truths" will be
inculcated.
Can this vision of the future be allowed to prevail?