2006-05-24
Suppose the local high-school chess team applies for a parade permit on Main St., but it's denied because the permit official is afraid they'll start a riot. (Maybe the Scrabble team will show up?) It's an easy case: The official is nuts, it's only a chess team, of course the permit should be granted.
If we substitute the Nazi Party for the chess team and make the setting a Jewish community, does it seem to you that the official has done the right thing?
If you believe that, then you believe that freedom of assembly should be granted according to who is applying and what their assembly is for. Civil libertarians like me would say that they don't see that this distinction is provided for in the First Amendment. If there are going to be parade permits at all, they need to be dispensed with neutrality.
If your answer was anything else, I would say you're wrong, but I'll give you a make-up test:
A tenured Prof. of Engineering at the University of Colorado, a war hero, Deacon of his church, and winner of the Father-of-the-Year Award, is accused of fabricating sources and plagiarism. He is investigated according to the rules for research misconduct, found guilty, and is fired.
But, this time substitute an tenured Prof. of Ethnic Studies who made himself unpopular by writing an article suggesting that 9/11 victims in the World Trade Center were like little Eichmanns, which caused the Governor (a conservative Republican) to call for his firing. Alas, he, too, is accused of fabricating sources and plagiarism, although both alleged acts occurred years before his infamous 9/11 comments and, in fact, had nothing to do with those comments.
Now for the quiz: Do you (1) treat him exactly the same way the Prof. of Engineering was treated, (2) give him a pass on the investigation into research misconduct, on the grounds that it would inevitably be in retaliation for his 9/11 comments and might also suffer from "command influence" ("command" being the Governor), or (3) fire him for his 9/11 remarks, since the investigation is only a delaying tactic sponsored by campus liberals?
Two facts you need to know before you answer: The accusations of research misconduct came from people who knew Churchill's research well, but who came forth when they heard about all the negative publicity, and University rules require an investigation whenever a charge of research misconduct is made.
This question is a little more challenging than the first one. Do we allow the circumstances under which an accusation is made to influence the treatment of the accusation, even when the rules are clear, and there are no exceptions provided for in the rules? Do we take special precautions to shelter those who practice unpopular speech (bend over backwards, in other words), to ensure that speech is truly free?
And your answer is?
Anyway, mine is clearly answer #1. Answer #2 doesn't work; if it did, anyone could immunize himself or herself against a charge of research misconduct merely by engaging in unpopular speech. And answer #3 is unacceptable to anyone who believes in free speech.
OK, no more hypotheticals. The Prof. is real (Ward Churchill; Google him), he really did make the statement about "little Eichmanns" and he really was accused of unrelated research misconduct. The University of Colorado chose answer #1 and just completed their Report a week ago. It was such great reading I wrote a letter to our local paper, The Daily Camera, which published it last Sunday:
You're going to get lots of letters about the Churchill Report, but probably very few from those who have actually read it. I'm writing to suggest to everyone that they do read it. It's easily accessible (https://www.aaup.org/JAF3/report-termination-ward-churchill).The Report is superbly well-written and researched. I learned a lot about the case against Churchill, but also about the nature of academic research and, especially, about Indian history. I was left more impressed with the value of ethnic studies, not less.
The section on the alleged smallpox-infected blankets is particularly interesting. The Report contains a speech by Chief Four Bears given when he was dying of smallpox in 1837, a song by Buffy Sainte-Marie from 1966, and much in-between. The issue isn't what actually happened, or even what historians and others have written and said (or sung) about what actually happened, but whether Churchill misrepresented his sources or fabricated evidence. (According to the Report, he did.)
If you doubt that the Report is a great read, check out what is my favorite sentence: "Professor Churchill said in his Submission E that from time to time he publishes written work under 'pseudonyms,' which may sometimes be the names of actual living people." (I am tempted to sign this letter with one of my pseudonyms, [University President] "Hank Brown.")
Other sentences aren't as funny, but are just as compelling: "But as a scholar, one must 'look' not only to confirm one's hopes, but also to face the possibility that the evidence may disconfirm them. " Or this: "For us, the indignation now exhibited by some University actors about Professor Churchill's work appears disingenuous, as they and their predecessors are the ones who decided to hire him."
It is regrettable that this entire matter originated with reaction to Churchill's exercise of his right to free speech by stating an extremely controversial opinion about 9/11. (Free speech for any other purpose is, of course, of little value.) The Report acknowledges this directly, but goes on to state that that in no way excuses Churchill's misdeeds.
The entire Churchill affair has diminished the University's reputation, but the Report goes a long way towards restoring it. It has for me, anyway. Read it!