That Sturdy First Amendment

The nation is beginning to notice Professor Ward Churchill and it isn't because of his patriotic positions. The Denver Post offered an editorial today supporting the trusty ol' First Amendment, but damning Prof. Churchill with very faint praise. (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2680020,00.html)

It seemed appropriate to offer a bit of a response to the editors on their positon:

The Post editorial “That Sturdy First Amendment” (1/29/05) misses a significant portion of the Ward Churchill brouhaha. While Churchill certainly does have a First Amendment right to speak out against the evils of America and his university has the cloak of “Academic Freedom” to permit his espousal of anti-establishment positions, even the students that I faced while teaching political science classes in the local community college were expected to display a much greater level of academic rigor in presenting their positions.

The outrage expressed by the students, parents and contributors of Hamilton College at Prof. Churchill’s screed against America should most assuredly be echoed and amplified by the University of Colorado. Anyone who takes a moment to read the full text of Churchill’s essay will be astonished at the misstatements, falsehoods, assertions and sensationalism that fill the piece. (http://passionbomb.com/words/push_roost.htm)

Maybe it was the statement that a half million Iraqi children died as a result of US targeting of water supplies and sewage facilities in a “counter-infrastructure” bombing campaign of Desert Storm. There’s plenty of documentation of the bombing campaign to demonstrate the focus on command/control, air defenses, communications and lines of communication in the forward operating areas.

Or possibly that the “Highway of Death” bombing was not fleeing Iraqi Army units and supply vehicles but some sort of “conscripted civilian workers”? Or possibly my favorite because I’m a retired USAF fighter pilot with more than 250 combat missions, “The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards." That distinction properly belongs to the "firm-jawed lads" who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below.” If Prof. Churchill stayed up and watched the night-scope video of Baghdad during Desert Storm, he might have noted a conflict with his view of “undefended.”

Dr. Churchill has a First Amendment right to his opinions, but a University that hopes to achieve academic respect has a right to demand that senior faculty, department chairs, and top administrators address issues with discipline. Facts aren’t required for First Amendment protection. But, facts and rigor are expected of academics. Expecting the state of Colorado to fund a university that strays from these principles and expecting a university to support a fanatic which such a low level of professionalism and high level of fanatical emotionalism is way beyond the First Amendment. You can say what you want, Doc, but you can’t expect to teach it and get paid.