Tuesday, March 29th 2005
Thoughts on Ward Churchill and the Panel
Yesterday’s “pity-party for Ward Churchill” hosted by the UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Department was probably a nice start to the week. The forum, which was intended for a discussion about academic freedom, was actually a department sponsored bitch-fest about how the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is targeting academia and how Ward Churchill, the “victim” of such wide scale attacks, is one of the first people on the list. Such a list will grow until every single academic who speaks out against the MAN is put into solitary confinement under the directions of the AmeriKKKan Fascist Regime!
Though I was only present during the last half of the forum, I was able to get the gist of the whole discussion: the White Man is bad (it’s good to be reminded sometimes), we live in a police-state, and that identity politics is the name of the game. The forum focused so much on the racial differences and antagonisms between whites and non-whites that it seems Ethnic Studies likes to feed off from the conflict between the two groups, and that continuing to emphasize the conflicts is the only way to stay relevant in political discussions.
The question-and-answer portion of the forum was interesting. Buoyed by the appearance of a largely sympathetic crowd, Ward Churchill felt at ease in receiving their praise and answering their questions. But one member of the audience stood out from the rest. Kerry Eskenas, a UC Berkeley student and member of the Berkeley College Republicans, told the panel that she disagreed with them and confronted Ward Churchill as to the outrageous comments he had made about the victims of the 9-11 attacks. I recently interviewed Ms. Eskenas concerning about the forum and Ward Churchill. (Posted below is the edited version of the interview. The interview was conducted over AIM. The original version was corrected for various errors.)
Carl Densing: What was Ward Churchill’s opening statement?
Kerry Eskenas: Well, it was really his only “statement,” each of the 4 [speakers] gave a speech, and he was first.
Carl Densing: I see. What did he say?
Kerry Eskenas: Well, I know you were taping the second half of the “forum” … I mentioned some of the things– such as how his job was to create “informed opinions.” And then, he goes off about this story of his, where he said that a few of my students came to him and told him about a bar in the financial district of San Francisco, right over the BART, and this bar glorified mass murder of Indians and even has the teeth of an enslaved Indian girl, and all these businesspeople go there after work, and to him that mentality was reminiscent of Eichmann.
It was like his “proof” of the 9/11 victims being Nazis is that financial districts must include businessmen who go to racist anti-Indian bars, because of this one instance of a few loser businessman.
He generalized to the entire WTC from one story he heard from a few of his students– this does not seem academic. It’s not professional, and the claim [he made] is obviously outrageous.
It’s like, wow, that’s really backed up with a lot of evidence, Ward. And even if such a [bar] does exist, it doesn’t speak for the 9/11 victims. He also talked about how this case against him is “the beginning” and it has “broad implications for all of us,” and how the politicians are going to go after all academics now.
After asking her question, Ward Churchill then attacks Ms. Eskenas for lacking a cogent argument in her questioning and for her inability to form a persuasive reasoning. With all the blather Ward Churchill directed at Ms. Eskenas, he did not answer her question, a diversion that I found interesting. (What’s also interesting was the direct attack on Ms. Eskenas. While the forum complained about the attacks directed at Ward Churchill, they tolerated what Ward Churchill did to her.)
Carl Densing: You asked him one question which really stood out: If you were on the plane that hit the WTC, would you have deserved that death? He did not answer your question, did he?
Kerry Eskenas: Yeah, I asked him that, because he was generalizing to all 9/11 victims. No, he didn’t answer [the question]. And then he brought up Ann Coulter because “they’re not going after HER, why me?” and it’s like, uh, she’s not an academic, you are. Also, 2 or 3 of the speakers [at the forum] claimed that only “a minority” opposes him, and the dean said that “Academic freedom should be absolute,” which was quite interesting of course.
In addition, Andrew [Quinio] brought up a funny point. [Ward Churchill’s] supporters are saying that his opponents are racists who hate Ward because he’s an Indian and his supporters are also saying that he got tenure because he’s an Indian. So basically those who awarded (and are now trying to retract) tenure to him, do they like him or dislike him because of his “Indian” status? They can’t have it both ways.
And while the panel preached about the need for racial diversity, it seemed that diversity of opinion was not on the offing.
Kerry Eskenas: I know; it’s incredible. I was saying to them, “you speak of democracy, you know, and yet I’m the first one here to say anything different from you people.” They don’t want ideological diversity, just skin color diversity. They want free speech but only for themselves, and they want to bash America and yet at the same time be protected by American rights that are only granted to them via our “evil” military.
All in all, the panel was not a waste of my time. I learned that their obsession with racial diversity is a cover for ideological conformity with the consequence of pitting one racial group against another. As for Ward Churchill, he did not fully address the issues concerning his record. Rather than answering the questions of Ms. Eskenas, he chose to divert his attention to other matters. So let me end this post with a question borrowed from Ms. Eskenas: If you, Ward Churchill, were on the plane that hit the WTC, wouuld you have deserved that fate?
Update:
A reader emailed me this comment:
Assuming it is even true, I wonder how Prof Churchill feels about bars that glorify the Soviet Union or Cuba or Che (a man who personally liked to pull the trigger)? Are people who frequent those places “little Eichmanns” who deserve to be slaughtered?
-Zachary Barbera
That’s a good question. I wonder what Dr. Churchill’s answer would be?
Also, some of you have asked about the “Anti-Native American” Bar in San Francisco that Ward Churchill talked about.
Isaac Clemens, one of the readers of the post, emailed me and told me that the bar’s name is “Eddie Rickenbackers” and it is owned by a former French Legionnaire. Mr. Clemens also gave me a link to the restaurant/bar: Anti-Indian Bar.
Also, thanks to all those who posted their comments. Most of the comments were enlightening and stuck to the issue at hand. There were only a few comments that were off topic.
I believe the formulation above that our rights are ‘granted’ by our ‘evil military’ (Disclaimer: Been there, done that, got the t-shirt) would be better stated as being secured, or defended.
Mr Churchill, the fraudulent professor otoh, should be left in place at CU. He’s a perfect poster child for Studies dept faculties. Perhaps the CU admin types could de-fund his dept so that only he works there. Perhaps send him to a satellite campus where he could teach ESL to his tribal compatriots. That might be too close to the smallpox blanket thing, though.
Comment by JSAllison — 3/29/2005 @ 6:02 am
Dude, your web site is UNREADABLE. Try increasing the font size.
Comment by Blue — 3/29/2005 @ 6:10 am
Here’s a column from Ward Churchill’s replacement as Dept. Chair. I suspect the Berkeley forum sounded very much like this.
“As they (evil neocons) have been doing already in other areas they want to dismantle the structural footholds (academic freedom/tenure, ethnic studies) that social movements gained for people of color and liberal and progressive intellectuals inside academe during the 60s & 70s.”
Comment by pilsener — 3/29/2005 @ 6:16 am
blue, go to ‘view’ -> text size -> and make it bigger
Comment by hmm — 3/29/2005 @ 6:16 am
Here’s a column from Ward Churchill’s replacement as Dept. Chair. I suspect the Berkeley forum sounded very much like this.
Counterpunch
Comment by pilsener — 3/29/2005 @ 6:20 am
Blue-
Hold CTRL and press “+”
Barring that, go to View > Text Size > Increase (FireFox) or View > Text Size > Larger/Largest (IE)
Oh, and stop whining…
Comment by Nick Bourbaki — 3/29/2005 @ 6:23 am
It’s unfortunate that Ms. Eskenas focused on the idiocy of Churchill’s “little Eichmann” nonsense, because that’s the issue Churchill and the rest of the left want desperately to focus on. Truth is, if Churchill loses his tenure, it’ll be over academic fraud, plagiarism, threatening other academics, lying outrageously on his c.v., etc. The “academic freedom” argument is a non-issue: People have a right to express cretinous opinions, period, and all of us ought to be affirming that.
Ms. Eskenas helped Churchill pretend that his career is in jeopardy solely because of his ideology. She helped divert attention from the real issues. He couldn’t have asked for a more helpful question. What a damn shame.
Comment by Erg — 3/29/2005 @ 7:14 am
I’d suspect that anecdote about the bar where they glorify the slaughter of Indians and have the teeth of the Indian slave girl is largely fabricated. Hard to believe that such a place would be successful in ultra-PC San Francisco.
Comment by Brainster — 3/29/2005 @ 7:23 am
Hey–at least Eskenas asked Churchill to justify his rant. I get your point, Erg, that Churchill is using a mom-and-apple-pie value (free speech) to mask his scholarly misconduct (plagiarism, misuse of sources, inventing evidence, etc.), but it’s so rare that these extreme left ideologues get challenged at all that I figure Eskenas deserves applause.
Comment by Steve — 3/29/2005 @ 7:25 am
So, I’m curious: how many white supremacists are tenured by academia in the name of “academic freedom?”
This isn’t academic freedom, this is leftist idiotarianism.
Comment by TallDave — 3/29/2005 @ 7:30 am
“Academic freedom” (i.e. the freedom to express oneself like an unhinged lefty), goes out the window whenever a professor deviates from the party line.
Questioning a queer studies/black studies orthodoxy is considered “hate speech”, whereas maintaining that innocent people incinerated by terrorists got what they deserve, represents a academic postulate.
Comment by Brian — 3/29/2005 @ 7:36 am
You can’t make points, develop honest discourse or even think of winning arguments with the stiff, reinforced embedded opinions and hyperbole of the left. It is just not possible. I was once there - a long, long time ago - but all of this is so familar and still very close. There is a pathology of resistence to a temptation much like an alcoholic or drug addict who has kicked the habit. They now its bad for them (right thinking, freedom of ideas and speech, etc.) but they want it so bad they have to demonize it constantly to refrain from “turning to the dark side”.
Comment by Jack Lillywhite — 3/29/2005 @ 7:50 am
“Ethnic” studies only exists if you believe in identity politics. Without the constant whine of “racism”, it would disappear. There’s not a single thing taught in “ethnic” studies that could not be taught in a real academic discipline. After spending years in academics, I still don’t know one serious scholar who would give “ethnic” studies the time of day.
Comment by Scott — 3/29/2005 @ 8:04 am
Churchill And The Panel
From Carl Densing at the California Patriot Blog, here is some reporting on Churchill’s appearance at Berkeley in Thoughts on Ward Churchill and the Panel.
Trackback by Joust The Facts — 3/29/2005 @ 8:35 am
All this in the comments section is all well and fine (except for that rude whining jerk Nick Bourbaki) but beside the point. Churchill is a cheat and a fraud and we all know it. He has to go. Otherwise it’s official - the cheats and the frauds really are being allowed to run the asylum. The fact that the other cheats and frauds don’t like Churchill’s scalping is unimportant, except as a reminder that there’s a big job ahead as there are so many more of them lined up behind Churchill. The Eskenas questions are entirely beside the point. It’s no good fighting a fraud on his own terriitory. That’s where he and his fellow travellers are strong. They have to be hit where they’re weak.
Comment by big dirigible — 3/29/2005 @ 8:35 am
Keep up the good work my fellow CN bloggers!
Comment by Brendan Steinhauser — 3/29/2005 @ 8:39 am
Good for you Ms. Eskenas. That opportunistic gasbag that hides in sheltered tenure paid for by hard-working taxpayers is too much. Only in the US does a professor supported by two working parents scrimping to send their kids to college muster the nerve to hide behind his tneure as he vilifies the country that provides more freedom for more people than anytime in history. He’s a fool: a “useful idiot.” Stalin or Mao would have him out on a collective farm where he belongs.
Comment by Frank Drebbin — 3/29/2005 @ 9:08 am
Ms. Eskenas believes our rights as Americans are granted by the military?
Comment by Ben — 3/29/2005 @ 9:09 am
Classiness, All Around Us.
Click to explore more WILLisms.com. In no particular order, WILLisms.com presents classiness from the blogosphere: 1. The SCOTUS blog notes that the Supreme Court is conflicted over file-swapping on the internet: The Supreme Court put on public displa…
Trackback by WILLisms.com — 3/29/2005 @ 9:28 am
I’ve always been interesting in the pathology which allows the self-righteous naysayers to rail against the evils of the military industrial complex yet continue suckling at the teat of that government and demanding all the rights, privileges and comforts afforded by the MIC.
I believe it was George Orwell who said, “People sleep peaceably in their beds because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” The radical left constantly rails against the military but how about the armed rough men of the tens of thousands of police departments who represent that thin blue line against the evildoers in our midst? You can’t have it both ways.
The radical left wing has devolved into an interesting amalgam of political thought that I would label as anarcho-socialism. In fact I’ve had long debates with someone who described himself in such a manner. It’s a political philosophy that can only arise from within the safety of a vibrant constitutional democracy because over the long haul, in the crucible of the real world, its adherents could only experience a political system worst than Islamofascism if practiced in its purest form. Yet anarcho-socialism is precisely the swill that is being spoonfed to many of our youth at the hollow-headed halls of higher learning.
Comment by Hankmeister — 3/29/2005 @ 9:50 am
Doh! That’s: “I’ve always been INTERESTED…”
Comment by Hankmeister — 3/29/2005 @ 9:53 am
Ben: I believe that the military protects our freedoms, and allows us to live freely. Churchill is denouncing the military, which itself enables him to speak his mind. Do you not find that strange?
Erg: I know that allegations of plagiarism are very serious in academia, but even if Churchill didn’t plagiarize (as he claims), he still should be attacked for his statement. That is because, as an academic, he does not have “absolute freedom” of speech, as a Berkeley dean at the forum claimed he did. A professor with tenure does not have the right to make unfounded and incorrect statements in his work. The Daily Cal today only included a very partial quote from me regarding this: Churchill was generalizing from a few racist businessmen in SF to the victims of 9/11. Is this academically sound? Just because some people are racist does not mean that all people are racist. An ethnic studies professor, who rallies against racism and stereotyping groups of people, should be the first to recognize that such a generalization is invalid.
Comment by Kerry — 3/29/2005 @ 11:25 am
Kerry writes, “Ben: I believe that the military protects our freedoms, and allows us to live freely. Churchill is denouncing the military, which itself enables him to speak his mind. Do you not find that strange?”
So wait… the MILITARY is PROTECTING Ward Churchill. Have there been airstrikes on Fox News that I didn’t hear about?
Hankmeister was trying to complete a thought when he wrote, “It’s a political philosophy that can only arise from within the safety of a vibrant constitutional democracy because over the long haul, in the crucible of the real world, its adherents could only experience a political system worst than Islamofascism if practiced in its purest form.”
So, to make that easier for people to understand, you’re saying that “anarcho-socialists” (I think “anarcho-syndicalists” is the term you were after, perhaps), if their ideas were to gain popularity, would bring on an Islamofascist society.
OK… Tell me, who are the Islamofascists who are trying to make the courts bow to religion, institute the torturing of undesirables, do away with the Bill of Rights? Who are these bogeyman that our military industrial complex is, cough, PROTECTING me from?
Comment by errr — 3/29/2005 @ 11:45 am
I would also like to know the exact name and location of this alleged “bar” in San Francisco. I live about 30 minutes away from that city, and frankly I think this “bar” is fabricated out of whole cloth.
I agree with Brainster that a bar that glorified the murder of Indians and had the teeth of an Indian slave girl on display(!) would never exist, much less survive, in that city.
I call shenanigans on that anecdote.
Comment by Anne Haight — 3/29/2005 @ 2:22 pm
@ Anne Haight and Brainster
I am not really familiar with the city of San Francisco, so I cannot really say as to whether such a bar exists. However, I might take a trip to SF this weekend and see if the “Anti-Indian” Bar exists.
Comment by Carl Densing — 3/29/2005 @ 2:29 pm
Ward Churchill is right. The vast right-wing conspiracy IS out to get him and others. Just not for the reasons he thinks. Academia IS targeted by the VRWC, not because of views like Churchill’s, but because it has been so anti-democratic, anti-intellectual and anti-liberal (in the traditional sense) for so long. Ward’s time is up simply because he is a complete fraud. The bigger issue, as Erg mentions, is why academia as a whole should, and will be, targeted. The reasons are (1) repression of free speech and intellectual diversity, (2) political indoctrination disguised as teaching, (3) political propaganda in the guise of scholarship, (4) the deliberate destruction of the heritage of Western civilization, throwing the baby out with the bath water. Their monoply on campus specch is crumbling, and they will be held accountable. The Revolution really IS coming, Ward. It just isn’t the one you expected.
Comment by freetotem — 3/29/2005 @ 2:59 pm
I think Churchill should have been asked - “If he had been on Flight 93, would he have sided with the passengers trying to stop the hijackers or with the hijackers? I can bet he at ‘best’ wouldn’t have given a straight answer to that question.
Comment by max — 3/29/2005 @ 4:24 pm
Err-
Our military protects you from the people who would gladly execute another 9/11 attack if they could. They protect you from the people who would gladly do anything within their power to make all Americans suffer and die.
Comment by WanderingJedi — 3/29/2005 @ 5:19 pm
Errr, im with yuo!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Annarcy Forevor — 3/30/2005 @ 12:48 am
fashists kno i studeid NINE YAERS for mi BA in ETNIC STUDYS an stil conspir to knot give me no intree into my CHOSE carerre!!!!!!!!
Comment by Annarcy Forevor — 3/30/2005 @ 1:18 am
Thank ew, Porfezzr Churchil…uh, heh heh, i meen, “Bill” (fergot abuot yuor Numb de Bloom)…butt i NEW yuo wood hav the Prefickt SILOOSHIN !!!!
Comment by Annarcy Forevor — 3/30/2005 @ 8:15 am
now off too fashist post orifice too grab mi checks from fashist basturd parants and fashest bastred govament than skor mi a leedle WEED an goe zone it in the publik park…YEAH BABY !!!!!!
Comment by Annarcy Forevor — 3/30/2005 @ 8:26 am
“POWAR TWO THE POEPLE! LONG LIVE CHIA GUEVERUREUIA !!!”
Comment by Annarcy Forevor — 3/30/2005 @ 8:43 am
The bar that Ward Churchill mentioned or alluded to is named Eddie Rickebackers at 122 Second Street in San Francisco. Apparently they have a good mojito. I will let you all know the skinny on the teeth and the decor.
Comment by Hank Rearden — 3/30/2005 @ 11:36 am
That weird Ward Churchill is beneath anything that can be called decent, let’s just say that liars get their just due. Since the Berkeley campus is having a serious problem with finances, and since the Chancellor is coming to those of us alumni who would like to help but have problems as described in this blog, my answer to the Chancellor is this: “Mister, clean house, or we are gonna kick your ass!” If you think I’m joking, just try me — I don’t play games.
Comment by Mescalero — 4/4/2005 @ 8:00 pm
It’s troubling to me that these people are called academics. I applaud the Eskenas for challenging Churchill, but it would’ve more to the point if she just presented him the evidence of his plagarism and asked him to comment on it. You can’t expect fair play when you’re in the lions den, so it’s better to choose your words carefully and allow for the lefty’s to blow hot air. Next, and this is what really troubles me, is how a discussion of academic freedoms quickly descends into a rant about Israel and the goals of Zionism. Do the words “Protocols of the elders of Zionism” ring a bell.
Comment by AG Wendlebaum — 4/5/2005 @ 7:08 am
Churchill is a fool, not even an academic, which does not rate much higher. Don’t you love the Che pose with the AK47 and the sunglasses? I recommend that this authentic hero pick up his pop gun and make a visit to Fort Benning, Georgia where he can serve as a training exercise…and not much of one at that. This blow-hard doesn’t desrve the attention he is getting….
Comment by Leonard Henry — 4/6/2005 @ 2:50 pm
By The Company He Keeps: Understanding Ward Churchill
After making primetime news earlier this year for his hateful comments comparing the victims of 9/11 to Nazis (”little Eichmanns”), leftist-radical professor Ward Churchill is still being received by certain audiences and public universities with ope…
Trackback by California Conservative — 4/8/2005 @ 1:16 pm