Reader target="_blank">Willow at target="_blank">Legendgames (hat tip: target="_blank">Glenn Reynolds...
Reader target="_blank">Willow
at target="_blank">Legendgames
(hat tip: target="_blank">Glenn
Reynolds) links to this
target="_blank">press
release by Colorado University Phil DiStefano laying out the procedure under
which the Ward Churchill controversy will be resolved. DiStefano has crafted the
question as a strict freedom of speech issue.
Two primary questions will be examined in this review: (1) Does
Professor Churchill's conduct, including his speech, provide any
grounds for dismissal for cause, as described in the Regents' Laws?
And (2) if so, is this conduct or speech protected by the First
Amendment against University action?
As Chancellor, I will personally conduct this review and will ask
two distinguished deans, Arts and Sciences Dean Todd Gleeson and Law
Dean David Getches, to assist me with this process.
Under these terms of reference the matter of Churchill's Indian ethnicity or
the validity of his qualifications is irrelevant. He might be a creature from
outer space without affecting the outcome one whit. It is not one of the
questions the distinguished panel will resolve. Within these narrow limits the
panel will probably have no choice but to find that although Ward Churchill's
statements are ill-informed or regrettable, they are protected expressions.
Nothing of course, precludes a supplementary review of whether his
qualifications were faked. It is possible that CU will follow the strategy of
affirming the principle of academic freedom while asserting its right to dismiss
on other grounds. Yet that is contingent; the actual is that the Ward Churchill
case is being molded as a First Amendment issue, and under those terms, he is
likely to be vindicated.
But whether it will vindicate the First Amendment in general on campus and
not just Ward Churchill in particular is probably the larger question.
Consistency requires that if Churchill's speech is licit, so might many other
types of expression which have been proscribed as 'hate speech'. The
target="_blank">Seattle
PI reports that Marquette University has banned Republican Students from
raising money for their 'Adopt a Sniper' program.
Marquette University in Wisconsin has blocked an attempt by
Republican students to raise money for a group called "Adopt a Sniper"
that raises money for U.S. sharp-shooters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
... The brainchild of a Texas police SWAT officer, Adopt a Sniper
has raised thousands of dollars in cash and gear to supplement the kit
of sharp shooters in U.S. combat platoons.
Two primary questions should be put to Marquette in this regard. '(1) Does
the student's conduct, including their campaign, provide any grounds for
proscription, as described in the Regents' Laws? And (2) if so, is
this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against
University action?'
COMMENTS