Are you now, or have you ever…
An astute reader observes that we appear to be located in Colorado and wonders why we haven’t commented on the world-famous Professor Churchill Affair. The short answer is this– everything that needs to be said on the subject has been said, over and over and over again. Why add to the noise pollution? But perhaps we are at a point where a reasonably brief summary is in order.
The Churchill Affair did not start with the web-publication of an obscure essay about the causes of the September 11th attacks. It started with the Columbus Day celebration last year in Denver, in which Ward Churchill took a leading role among protesters, and was in fact arrested and charged with loitering. Charges were dismissed, and big-league Republicans were pissed. The “discovery” of the essay couldn’t have come at a better time for them. Through his activities as an Indian activist, and criticism of American foreign policy, Churchill had become a thorn in the side of the Rich Religious and Patriotic Republicans (fronted by Governor Bill Owens), and the stage was set for a classic witch-hunt.
Victims already include a “controversial” environmental studies instructor (who had dared to criticize Coors and other big polluting Republican-owned corporations) and the President of the University, who has announced her resignation under the pressure of just one scandal too many.
A serious smear campaign was undertaken and in one 6-week period, the local papers devoted around 60,000 words to anti-Churchill propaganda. The outrage over Churchill’s Sept. 11th essay (which, remember, had been ignored for three years) escalated into an “investigation” of his academic record and personal attacks, including great concern over whether he had signed the mandatory “loyalty oath” required of CU faculty. State law requires anybody who teaches at a higher education institution to sign an oath affirming they will uphold the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. Presumably, the University would have grounds to fire Churchill if he hadn’t signed the oath, or if he had signed it, they could get him for breaking it. And using a classic propaganda technique, the newspapers and TV news broadcasts made sure Churchill’s image appeared often– the most unflattering photos available, making him look like a raving mad-man and in one case showing him holding a — gasp — lit cigarette.
The “investigation” by a committee of the Board of Regents is said to have been concluded, but a report has been delayed for at least a week due to the surprise announcement of CU President Betsy Hoffman’s resignation. The university’s lawyers are known to be negotiating a settlement with Churchill, who will probably be bought out as the least objectionable settlement to the affair for all concerned.
[Note: As this article is being transferred, early in June, the investigation is still on-going, the settlement offer having been withdrawn the week after this was published. The next paragraph assumes a settlement, which looked likely at the time.]
The final resolution of the affair will be that Churchill has become a radical left-wing super-star, the governor will sleep better at night knowing that the sons and daughters of his wealthy friends will be exposed to one less radical voice on campus, and the State and its flagship university will continue to be a laughing-stock for the more civilized world that lives at a lower altitude and has enough oxygen to breathe.
Republicans have been complaining for years that Liberals dominate college faculties, especially in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences. Obviously this is a problem that can only be redressed by bullying, and no doubt if a few radical profs get ridden out of town on a rail the others will see the light. Hoffman more or less succesfully weathered the football scandal and the drinking scandals (two deaths), but then she had to go and defend Churchill’s academic freedom, and she dropped the M word– McCarthyism. She’s being proven right, but at the cost of her career.
Perhaps if these concerned Repbullycans had a little more education themselves, they would realize that a “liberal bias” in our colleges is a problem they can’t solve. Keeping in mind that the Republican voting power bloc consists of masses of the ignorant, led by the greedy, they should not expect to be well-represented on the faculties of Liberal Arts colleges.
There are a few stupid college professors, to be sure, but no greedy ones. Unlike most other professions, teaching is still a calling, and professors aren’t in it for the money. It’s not a vast left-wing conspiracy to indoctrinate our children. If anything, it’s a coalition of the intelligent and the underpaid, dedicated to preventing the indoctrination of our children by a repressive government.
–SG
What do you think? Please enter a comment below.
March 13th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Follow-up, a bit later in the day…. Today’s (Sunday) Denver Post has a featured article suggesting that the Churchill settlement talks have been stalled because more Churchillian crimes have been discovered by the “Claremont Institute.” Described simply as a “think tank,” the “Institute” is in fact a right-wing political organization whose self-described mission is to “restore the principles of the American Founding (sic) to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.” Their Colorado front-man, former State Senate President John Andrews, had his picture with the article and this quote featured in italics larger than the subhead for the article:
But wait, there’s more… in the first column of the article, the writers (Denver Post staff writers Arthur Kane and Dave Curtin) say that:
What the HELL kind of reporting is this?! The “critics and citizents” part is vague innuendo intended to support a statement that Churchill “demonized… victims as Nazis.” Stating it as fact. Karl Rove couldn’t have done a neater job of demonizing Churchill. Although since we see so many common threads, and the most vociferous witch-hunters are in fact Republicans– it wouldn’t be all that surprising to learn that the entire affair has been scripted by the Minister of Propaganda himself.
March 14th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
SG- I generally find little fault with the opinions expressed in your articles. I don’t consider myself a conservative/republican or a liberal/democrat, but (I think I’m stealing this idea in quotes) rather “Extreme middle”/independent. I generally read your articles with that frame of mind and neither consider SG conservative or liberal, but rather somewhat anti-propaganda. But I have passed SG articles on to fellow Americans and they seem to think that SG articles are “super liberal”. I think that kind of proves your point that “the Republican voting power bloc consists of masses of the ignorant”. I would also like to say “that goes for democrats as well.” The republicans just happen to be somewhat of a majority right now. But if the democrats were had the majority and the media bias again, I’m sure SG would be more than happy to point out their flaws as well. Keep up the freethinking.
March 16th, 2005 at 8:05 am
A very welcome comment! Worthy of an entire article in response– “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” March 17th.