The outrage that characterized the initial reaction to Ward Churchill's newfound fame hasn't so much passed as paved the way for more thoughtful writing on some foundational problems in academe. Among the more thoughtful I've come across is this post by Roger Kimball, which draws our attention away from Churchill himself to the larger problem he represents: the politicization of higher education. Roger's post has many links and makes for a good read.
I agree that politicization is the real story here, and that Ward Churchill's invitation to Hamilton is simply a symptom. Churchill, intellectual lightweight and ethnic fraud that he is, has produced material so repugnant, and from such a high perch in academe (departmental chairman at a major state university), that he succeeds in shocking even jaded critics of higher education. For example, in an online rag called Satya, he said this in an April '04 interview:
What are some of the solutions? Extreme events, like 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, have mobilized people out of such complacency, albeit temporarily.
I don’t have a ready answer for that. One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary. This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness. ‘Hey those brown-skinned folks dying in the millions in order to maintain this way of life, they can wait forever for those who purport to be the opposition here to find some personally comfortable and pure manner of affecting the kind of transformation that brings not just lethal but genocidal processes to a halt.’ They have no obligation—moral, ethical, legal or otherwise—to sit on their thumbs while the opposition here dithers about doing anything to change the system. So it’s removing the sense of—and right to—impunity from the American opposition.
And:
So if it takes eradication of the beast from within, how would you see that happening?
Well, first the withdrawal of consent, people imbued with consciousness to withdraw altogether from an embrace of the state. If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? I’ve never fashioned myself to be a revolutionary, but it’s part and parcel of what I’m talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in which something better can replace it. In instability there’s potential. That’s about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. I’m actually a de-evolutionary. I don’t want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether [emphasis added].
When you write such things, along with his statement that the victims in the Twin Towers were "little Eichmanns," you do get noticed. Since notoriety is all a man like Churchill can produce, he's reached his goal. All the posing and lecturing in the world, including at places like Hamilton College, won't give him authentic intellectual credentials.
Of course, without the support of Hamilton's Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society, and Culture, which invited Churchill to campus, we might never have heard of Churchill in the first place. If you visit the Kirkland Project's web site, you'll find puerile garbage such as:
U.S. theorists of class often speak of it as an angry two-ton elephant sitting in a small room; everyone knows the animal is there, but no one wants to mention it. Most Americans identify themselves as middle class and act as if that status is irrelevant to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the United States today. As a result class is erased. At the same time many social scientists consider class as a singular experience and place marker, apart from other distinctions of human identity. What is lost is the complexity of class as it overlaps with the codes, values and experiences of race, gender, sexuality, nationality and ability.
Or this course, a gem of unintentional self-parody:
Sophomore Seminar 222F Freaks. Investigation of how what has been considered to be normal has been conceptualized and defined from both philosophical and biological perspectives through the study of individuals and groups categorized as freaks. We will examine descriptions of particular mental and physical "abnormalities," and pay special attention to the historical and cross-cultural differences in what is considered to be normal. Maximum enrollment, 24.
For supporting such "academic" endeavors, we can thank the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which supports a wide array of causes, from environmentalism to abortion to web-based learning.
Some of Hamilton professors have had enough of the regime that they fear is ruining the college's reputation. Among them is Robert Paquette, whose op-ed "Of Liberty and Liscence" appears in today's Washington Times. Prof. Paquette holds a chair in Hamilton's history department. He has protested the Kirkland Project's influence on Hamilton for years because it "has sought to redefine the ethos of the institution."
Another is Stephen J. Goldberg, who teaches art history at Hamilton. His clear, impassioned op-ed appears in Utica Today:
I write on behalf of the many students, staff, and alumni of Hamilton College, the families of the victims of 9/11, as well as countless citizens of New York State, to express my utter dismay at the insensitivity and moral bankruptcy of the Kirkland Project and the current administration of Hamilton College for their plans to bring to campus polemicist Ward Churchill.
Also:
To quote my esteemed colleague Ted Eismeier, professor of government: "The administration erred by speciously wrapping the Kirkland Project's folly in the mantle of free speech and then compounded that error by cobbling together a panel to discuss Churchill's views on 9/11. Such a charade demeans Hamilton College and gives our imprimatur to Churchill's outlandish and odious rhetoric."
Is there another reason to explain the enormous attention this story has received? I think there is, and I'll post on it soon.
In the mean time, see the information and commentary on Churchill from:
Paul Campos, a law prof at CU, in the Rocky Mountain News, who writes:
The question of whether a serious research university ought to hire someone like Churchill is laughable on its face. What's not so funny is the question of exactly how someone like him got hired in the first place, and then tenured and named the head of a department.
That, in the end, is a more important question than what will or ought to happen to Churchill now. Churchill is a pathetic buffoon, but the University of Colorado is far from alone in having allowed itself to toss intellectual integrity and human decency overboard in the pursuit of worthy goals.
Speaking truth to power, giving a voice to those who have been silenced, pursuing controversial and unpopular ideas in an intellectually rigorous way - these are all things that the university in general, and this university in particular, has done and continues to do.
That through whatever combination of negligence, cowardice and complicity we have allowed Ward Churchill to besmirch those ideals by invoking them in the defense of his contemptible rantings is now our burden and our shame.
Also see Edward Alexander and Jim Adams in FrontPage News, and, via Steve Bainbridge, Eric Rasmusen, who lists five possible grounds for firing Churchill (something Bainbridge opposes).
| Feb. 7, 2005 | 9:41 AM