Free speech issue bigger than Churchill

by Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News columnist

It's hard to know where to begin.

The University of Colorado Board of Regents holds a public meeting to address whether a faculty member has exceeded the limits of free speech - and says no one from the public will be allowed to speak.

For you irony fans, that's probably as good a place to start as any.

After two people are arrested for disrupting the meeting - by the way, everyone in the room except, apparently, the CU regents saw these disruptions coming - the governor issues a statement, which says in part:

"Their abhorrent behavior underscores the culture of violence that can be spawned by inflammatory speeches and essays, such as those by Mr. Churchill."

Yes, Bill Owens rushes to warn us of the dangers of inflammatory speech. I wonder what he thinks of, say, Thomas Paine. Or Patrick Henry. Or the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Meanwhile, the legislature boldly condemns Ward Churchill's offending 9/11 essay - I'm starting a pool as to how many of the legislators have actually read it - with only Sen. Peter Groff having the courage to oppose the resolution.

"Democracy and freedom are hard work," said Groff, who said he was repulsed by Churchill's essay but thought there just might be a free speech issue here.

Clearly, democracy and freedom can be hard work. Look to the recent election in Iraq - a possible first step toward democracy and freedom - and note that dozens of people died trying to vote. That's hard work.

For easy work, see: regents/governor/legislature.

I have read several of Churchill's essays. Let's just say I'm not impressed with his scholarship. Let's just say my guess is he has a romantic view of revolutionary violence that you can get away with only if you're a college professor or a college sophomore.

If you want to read someone making the case for America as a terrorist state - which is, in part, Churchill's argument - read Noam Chomsky's book 9-11. Churchill recommends it himself. At least you'll be offended by someone of stature - and not someone who believes the terrorists chose the World Trade Center in order to attack cell-phone-wielding "little Eichmanns."

But there are issues more important than debating about a formerly obscure professor of ethnic studies - not to mention the percentage of his American Indian blood - whose essay was written three years ago to absolutely no effect.

The issue is the limit of dissent in times of great passion - and the guarantee that unpopular ideas can still be heard.

That's at the heart of free speech and, in this case, of academic freedom.

In response to this concern, the regents issue an apology to "all Americans" as if "all Americans" were impatiently waiting to hear from CU regents.

And so it comes to be that Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano - heading a university desperate for state funds - says he'll launch a 30-day investigation into Churchill's writings and speeches in order to determine whether he thinks the professor should be fired.

This, of course, fits perfectly with CU's brand of damage control, which we've watched with some awe throughout the never-ending CU football recruiting scandal.

In a month or so, you know exactly what will happen: DiStefano will inevitably find himself attacked either for defending Churchill's work or for attacking academic freedom.

There was a better option, which was for DiStefano to make his own critique of Churchill's essay and then to quote from the American Association of University Professors on academic freedom: "On a campus that is free and open, no ideas can be banned or forbidden."

He might have pointed out, too, that a university is not a talk radio station. And that you don't fire professors because the public, or even the governor, is outraged.

It was too bad that CU President Betsy Hoffman didn't get to speak before the afternoon descended into chaos. It took her long enough to make a statement - I guess she was tied up talking to the governor - but when she did talk Thursday, she had something important to say.

"I want to caution everyone that there's a reason why we support academic freedom," she said. "There's a reason we believe in free speech. These are the basic tenets of a university."

She then pointed to two moments where CU presidents have faced similar challenges. In the first case, a legislature dominated by the Ku Klux Klan went after the CU faculty. The second came during the Red scare when faculty were fired.

"Let us remember that in the mid-1920s, President (George) Norlin was ordered to fire all the Catholics and Jews, and he refused," Hoffman said. "And the state cut the university's funding. But he stood for academic freedom. Today CU reveres him for doing that and for his beliefs.

"In the 1950s, President (Robert) Stearns was forced to investigate and to terminate faculty members. And just last year we apologized to Morris Judd (one of those fired) . . . for what our predecessors did 50 years ago.

"Let us not do today something that our predecessors will judge ill of us 50 years from now. It's very, very important that we uphold the tenets of free speech."

Certainly, that's more important than the fate of Ward Churchill.

Mike Littwin's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Call him at 303-892-5428 or e-mail him at littwin [at] RockyMountainNews.com.