State Representative Steve Nass was on Madison's WISC NBC-15's ten o'clock news tonight to discuss the Ward Churchill-University of Wisconsin Whitewater issue. Nass is still maneuvering to bring a halt to UWW hosting Churchill, and during the interview on NBC-15, he called Churchill's speech hate speech. I immediately cringed. There is little I dislike more than lawmakers tossing around the hate speech label, be it Democrat or Republican. The hate speech label is little more than a politically viable way to suppress unpopular and stupid voices. I personally do not want to see state politicians getting involved in this issue. There are plenty of reasons for the University of Wisconsin Whitewater to decide against having Churchill on campus outside of the stupidity of his "little Eichmans" essay.
First, this invitation was extended 6 months ago. At that time, Churchill's essay was little known. Had it been a high profile piece prior to the invitation, it is likely the invitation would not have been extended. A university is to a certain extent a business. Most do not want to be associated with perverse thought such as this, and they have every right not to extend a venue for it. It would be one thing if this horrible opinion came from high quality scholarship. The case can and should be made that Churchill's essay is of such low quality that it is not deserving of the title of scholarship. Just the same, the University can make the case that it does not want to associate itself and its good name with Mr. Churchill.
More importantly than this are the questions about Churchill's convenient relationship with facts and the truth. Academia, especially the social sciences, is about the quest for knowledge and truth. Churchill is a poor example of this. I can tell you from experience, lineage plays a role in Native American studies. A Native American scholar has something of a built in 'street cred', for lack of a better term. The non-Native American scholar has higher barriers to credibility. Churchill plainly lied about his lineage, and this likely opened up roads to him as a scholar that may have never been opened to him. Next, it appears that Churchill fabricated a story about an 1837 small pox outbreak. This violates all codes of ethics in academia, and opens the remainder of his work to serious questioning. To put such an individual in front of students as an honored speaker is irresponsible.
Finally, and this point is open to academic debate, Churchill's work may be just plain harmful to Native American communities. Much of it is a caustic celebration of victimhood. It looks back with anger and blame without answering many unresolved questions. It does not offer Native Americans options for moving forward in the future-if anything, it keeps them rooted in a miserable past. It does not take a lot of work to scream 'damn you white man' with everything you write. It does not break new intellectual ground in people's minds to assert over and over that the appearance of Europeans on the continent proved catastrophic to Native American communities. Given that, what purpose does his speech to students serve? If he is a mediocre scholar, why is he there? Because he's published and mildly famous?
This is a topic (and I'm sure you can tell), that strikes a raw nerve in me. During my time at the University, I followed a dual track of study. I covered my need to provide my future family with a comfortable life by studying in the business school. I satisfied my personal needs by studying history in the school of letters and sciences, with a self emphasis on Native issues. Up until the day I graduated, I had not decided if I was going to join the business world or continue my studies on Native American history. I came to learn that Native American history is a tough nut to crack. Native American politics is a winding maze that is tough to follow, with political boundaries that seem to shift below your feet. Unless you toe certain lines of thought, your work does not seem to get anywhere. It offends me that this man lies and distorts the way he does and gets a false credibility for it. Come to think of it, in a way, he may be the prototypical white man of his own work, using Native Americans for his own gain.
UPDATE
For a great piece on the history of the media coverage of Ward Churchill prior to 2004, check out this column from Dave Kopel at the Rocky Mountain News. It also outlines various charges of academic fraud leveled at Churchill over the years.
CORRECTION
In the original, the year 1837 was transposed to read 1873. The correct year is 1837.
2 comments:
Sandi-
You are not the only one to have been on the receiving end of hate speech. I have as well. Even given that, I still remain opposed to politicians sticking their noses into it. The problem with polticians getting involved with hate speech is that it is such a subjective thing. When politicians start deciding what is and is not hate speech, free speech starts to erode. Hate speech crosses into the realm of that which is not constitutionally protected when it poses a harm to the public safety. And I can tell you from my experience that there is a big difference between speech that crosses that line and what we are talking about here. Sometimes speech is hurtful, but that does not mean that we should go about squelching it. Inside we should fight it with enlightened speech.
Additionally, academic fraud and poor scholarship are very good reasons to cancel a speech before undergraduate students. Churchill is a poor scholar whose work has never been critically and thoroughly examined. Now that it is being scrutinized, it is becoming clear that he plays loose with the facts. This is reason enough not to put him before undergrads as an "expert".
Thanks for the comment, but I respectfully disagree with you.
Jib
We do agree on more than we disagree on. That post was written in reaction to Nass on Madison's NBC affiliate. The way I understood his comments in that interview was that he was going to work through the legislature to end UWW's invitation to Churchill because what Churchill said was hate speech. I also watched O'Reilly the next night, and in that interview it was not clear that that is what Nass planned to do. Either way, I agree with what 620 WTMJ's Mark Reardon said after the O'Reilly segemnt-that Nass may not be the most eloquent person to be doing the media circuit on this. He still seems nervous on camera.
Post a Comment