Ward Churchill coming to a campus near you

Getting to know your wrestling neighbor

| March 3, 2005 8:00 PM

It's no secret that University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has lied about his Native American background and called 9/11 victims who lost their lives in the New York Twin Towers "Little Eichmans" in his essay entitled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."

But it's also no secret that at present, the controversial Churchill is still scheduled to appear at Eastern Washington University in April as part of Native American History week and whether we like that or not, the truth is he has a right to be heard and I support EWU's and other universities' decisions to do the same.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't support Churchill, and as an American I am ashamed that he defended what the terrorists did and how he characterized our fellow countrymen who died as a result of terrorist actions.

However, if we censor one we censor all, don't we?

The issue is not about liking or disliking what Churchill has to say, but considering the repercussions of allowing or not allowing him to speak his views. What would happen if universities were no longer considered a melting pot of ideas where people can hear other viewpoints, are encouraged to question and, in doing so, grasp a better understanding of their own beliefs?

How would our troops feel if they came home one day to a United States that approved the free speech of some, but not others?

Either way, a message is construed about the extent to which our country stands by the values upon which it was founded.

After having read Churchill's essay, it is clear that he disagrees with U.S. foreign policy and the spread of capitalism, and furthermore sees both as acts of genocide against other world populations such as the Iraqis.

So what?

He can have that opinion and by all means is not the first, nor he will be the last, to hold that viewpoint.

Those who disagree can exercise their right of free speech and take him on, and this in turn, is why I think universities have an obligation to their students and communities to allow Churchill to speak.

Can I say it takes two to tango?

It also takes at least two sides to hold a dialogue and I don't think we want our college campuses to become a nucleus for one-sided conversations.

Churchill may deserve to lose his job for lying about his claim to be Native American and other false accusations he may have made, but lying is still not warrant enough to take away his free speech rights.

I guess that means college students and others who listen or read Churchill's work will have to use their critical thinking skills to discern a lie from the truth.

Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing anyway?

I know it may disturb some to even consider that they would have something in common with Churchill, but considering we're all American citizens, we all have first amendment rights.

If Churchill's right to free speech isn't defended, we may well wake up one day to find that we no longer have ours.

Aimee Hornberger is the health and education reporter for the Columbia Basin Herald.