Go To Main Page The Gogs Mixed Bag Clark's Corner The Professor Guest Column
					The Professor
			2.14.05
		As the Granger-proclaimed Professor of this outfit, one of the things I like to follow is the state of my profession: what the most pressing issues are, where the current trends are going, who the most recent topic of controversy is. That’s why, of all the happenings in the world today, the latest that’s attracted my interest the most is the hullabaloo over Ward Churchill. For those of you unfamiliar with the story: Churchill is a professor at the University of Colorado whose writing has attracted quite a bit of attention of late, mainly because of comparisons he made between the white-collar workers in the World Trade Center who died on 9/11 and the bureaucrats who worked under Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi officer whose primary responsibility was to ensure the smooth operation of the German Reich. To the extent that the people in both groups worked to perpetuate a system (global capitalism and anti- Semitism, respectively) that seeks to degrade and denigrate weaker peoples to the benefit of the powerful, according to Churchill, these “little Eichmanns” deserved whatever horrific fate is dealt them. Both made the trains run on time, so to speak, in the service of a corrupt, immoral, and unjust politico- economic structure. Both had it coming. I don’t agree with Churchill’s analysis. For one thing, it conveniently avoids some crucial differences between the Nazi regime and the American system: the former followed a policy that actively sought to exterminate a population based on the pseudo-Darwinian notion that people deserve status in accordance with their in-built racial characteristics and virtues; the latter follows policies that actively seek to integrate as many populations into a system based ultimately on the rationalist notion that individuals will seek material gain when their efforts can be assessed through a price-based system. The former is scientifically bogus and morally indefensible. The latter is, I hope even the most ardent Marxist will admit, at least open to scientific debate and moral defense. Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Adam Smith are not hell-bent on the extermination of entire nations, I don’t think. One might not like the consequences of capitalism, but one must work harder than drawing comparisons to the Nazis in order to demonstrate that these consequences derive from a determined and coordinated effort on the part of politicians and corporate bosses. Oppressive? In some cases, perhaps. Genocidal? Show me how. The fact that I don’t agree with Churchill does not mean that I wish to see him fired, though, as some have begun to suggest. Bill O’Riley of FOX News began by defending his right to employment, but now he seems to be suggesting the opposite. Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution hasn’t directly called for the pink slip (at least I haven’t read his demand for such), but his views on academic disciplines and programs such as Ethnic Studies (both of which Churchill is actively involved in) seem to indicate that the problem goes far deeper than one man. In a word, he’d like to see the entire pit of vipers tarred and torched. There is a point here: Academic freedom increases general welfare when it is matched by civic responsibility. For example, most people will agree that Nazi professors shouldn’t grace the halls of political science departments because there isn’t any redeeming value to students’ learning Nazi ideology in a democratic system. We agree that anarchist (but expert) bomb-makers shouldn’t occupy positions in engineering schools because there’s no sense in teaching students how to blow up the structures they are taught to make sound, and why they should want to do such a thing. And we seem pretty comfortable with the fact that composition instructors who wnat to taech sutdents to ivnert the sceond and tihrd lteters of wrods don’t get hired. Ward Churchill has academic freedom. His devotion to civic responsibility is up for debate. And that leads me to my point: As long as there is a debate in the country (even if few of us come into contact with his proponents), then Churchill should be allowed to trot his views out for public scrutiny, even at taxpayer expense. Motorhead’s Lemmy puts it precisely: Let Ward run his gig up the flagpole and see who salutes hit. Trust me. Lots of people these days are bringing hand to brow already. And until an overwhelming proportion of the US population agrees that he belongs in the same category as Nazi professors, anarchist bomb-making experts, and intentionally dyslexic composition instructors, he’s going to continue to make a lot of coin on his rhetoric. Does this bother you? Then do something about it. Churchill has the right to his views. You have the right to tell him he’s wrong. He professes to be a true proponent of democracy. Do you have the civic responsibility to make the same claim?
	MASTER INDEX Advice Columns Suck Archives Baseball Because I Can Betting Pool Clark's Corner Fat Guys Get Naked Too Fiction Football The Gogs Guest Article Mitch's Multi-Monthly Meanderings Mixed Bag NCAA Tournament The Professor Sex Stone