Until late January 2005, Ward Churchill was a relatively unknown professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He was chairman of the Ethnics Studies Department. After Churchill was invited to participate in a panel discussion at Hamilton College, his essay “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” came to light. Now he has resigned his position as chair, and although it is claimed he will remain a professor in the department, Colorado Governor Bill Owens has called on Churchill to resign.

What’s all the fuss about?

In the evening of 11 September 2001 Churchill came out with his essay that began by alluding to Malcolm X’s remark about “chickens coming home to roost” after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But Churchill also wrote, speaking of the terrorists/hijackers who flew the planes,

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break.

He also refers to the 19 terrorists who crashed planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as “combat teams.” He places the word terrorist in quotation marks to signal that in his opinion they are not “terrorists,” even calling them “gallant” and legitimizing their deeds by calling them “combat teams.” Furthermore, he refers to the “technocratic corps” killed at the Twin Towers as “little Eichmanns.”

Interestingly, after the noise level began to rise, Churchill waved his fee of $3500, and the college insisted that he would still appear, but then following death threats to college officials and Churchill himself, the college cancelled Churchill’s visit. One of Hamilton's students, Matthew Coppo, has expressed his outrage and hurt, because his father was one of the 9/11 victims.

Churchill’s essay, “Some People Push Back” is a problem for two reasons: his slanting of history and his flippant style. His style, [calling the WTC victims “little Eichmanns,” his conversational, “gimme a break,” his referring to George H. W. Bush as “Old George”] portrays the maturity level of a supercilious teenager, and its effect is at least half responsible for the recent negative reactions against him and undoubtedly responsible for his scholarly research coming under scrutiny.

But his failure to recognize the interrelatedness of world affairs is the issue that could possibly derail his tenure. From his essay one infers that the United States routinely and without provocation bombs other nations. He conveniently leaves out the details that prompted the bombing of Iraq in the early nineties; he does not mention that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and tried to annex it. He does not mention that Saudi Arabia, fearing that Saddam would attack it next, asked the United States for help. The UN—not just the United States—ordered the sanctions against Saddam, who, according to Madeleine Albright, “could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations.” These facts do not support the image Churchill wishes to create of the US as aggressor, so he omits them.

He attacks Albright by referring to her gaffe in a 60 Minutes segment about the children dying being worth it. Albright later apologized for misspeaking:

I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations.... As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own.

Again the apology does not jibe with the unapologetic monster Churchill is painting, so again we’re missing a piece of information that changes the way we would think if it had been supplied.

Churchill has claimed that his essay has been misunderstood, and so he has responded to the recent uproar his “roosting chickens” essay has spawned, “Ward Churchill Responds to Criticism of ‘Some People Push Back’ .” He reiterates his thesis that “we reap what we sow.” And no one can argue with that premise as law. Most mature people understand this natural and spiritual law. The difficulty is just how far back can we go to decide which act begat which act.

In his response he says his book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality is

a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

Whether the U.S. military has “engage[d] in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights” is not the fact he declares it to be. As the justification for the present war in Iraq is debated, debate has occurred for use of military dating back to 1776. Yet he dismisses information that does not support his position.

And that is the problem with his remaining a professor. His scholarship is tainted with this bias that negates the very foundation of a university search for knowledge and truth. His writing clearly reflects this bias—and how could it not affect his teaching?
_______________________________________________________________________________

Please join the forum if you'd like to share your thoughts.