07 Dec. 2010
FD4
Should you never question your boss? Or should you not speak up in a meeting because people do not listen to you? Or do you think your ideas are stupid? Does these thoughts sound familiar to you? While I do not know if any of you have ever heard such phrases, I have been told these very words by people in the past. What these statements have in common is they each express a fundamental lack of trust in the “freedom of speech”- the first amendment of the US Constitution; which states, “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference”. This amendment is the very first in the list of all the amendments in the US Constitution, it is also the most important and fundamental aspect in building a stronger society for America. The First amendment protects the right of people to say what they think and feel. However, the question is: does the First Amendment really protect the right of people to express their personal perspective even when it goes against the popular views of others? Or do the protections of the First Amendment not apply when we become the target of others whose beliefs we have gone against? These are the questions that people have asked the government regarding the case of Professor Ward Churchill, who had offended others when he compared some of the victim of the September 11th attack as “little Eichmanns” in his essays and books. [THESIS]Even though the statement is insensitive and maybe somewhat outrageous, Professor Churchill does have the right that every American citizen has according the U.S. Laws – that is the right to freedom of speech[THESIS].
As you have probably heard before, the case of Professor Churchill, who made a controversial statement about the tragedy of September 11th, involved his essay “Some people Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”. In this essay Professor Churchill compares the “technocrat corpation” in the heart of the World trade Center as “little Eichmanns” and refers to this tragedy as the “chickens come home to roost”. He claims the event on September 11th were unavoidable and, from his point of view, a natural result of what he called “unlawful US policy”. Due to these statements Professor Churchill was fired by the University of Colorado at Boulder on July 24, 2007.
One of my classmate, Ryan Watanabe, stated in the class discussion that “Speakers such as Professor Ward Churchill misuse the First Amendment to hide behind these obnoxious claims.” I must disagree with Mr. Watanabe on his stance that Professor Churchill abuses his right to freedom of speech. Professor Churchill's words are somewhat harsh and insensitive, and may even be viewed as outrageous, unpatriotic, or even treasonous in the public opinion. However, he did not violate his right. Professor Ward Churchill' case reminds me of my friend I know in high school who literally hated the US government. He always talked about the US being unjust, and how they killed thousands of people during wars. Was he being guilty for speaking his thoughts? I don't think he was. According to the First Amendment, we all have the right to freedom of religion and the freedom to express ourselves free from any government interference. From my point of view, my friend and Professor Churchill have the rights to express themselves, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of speech has always been a very important right for all US Citizens. America is a country of laws and freedom. Each and every one of us has our freedom and the right to be protected in this country. No one has the right get take away those rights from my friend, Professor Churchill, or any one of us. In the case of Professor Ward Churchill, he was fired for what he believed in, and for expressing his point of view to the public. Is this the “justice” that we all believe in? Is this the system that we put all our hope and faith in?
I agree that Professor Churchill may have been insensitive toward people, as also described by my classmate - Nor Nordin, in our class blog. Nordin stated that, “his views on the tragic event where more than 2000 Americans were killed are insensitive and cruel.” I cannot agree more with Nor Nordin; Professor Churchill’s words are indeed cruel, and though I wish he did not write those hurtful word or had made some concession to those who were felt truly hurt by his statements, I also believe that there is no doubt that Professor Churchill had the right to express his feelings and beliefs. To be fired for expressing himself, from what I know, is not justice as the people against him so call. In addition to that, Professor Ward Churchill did claim that those who he compared to as “little Eichmanns” was not intended to include food-service workers, children, janitors, and passers-by who also were killed during the tragic event of September 11th. In reality, Professor Churchill’s words were actually quite ambiguous, and I believe that those who are free of guilt will surely take it lightly as a mere metaphor. However, for those who have guilt, I feel that his words must have seemed like daggers stabbing deep into their hearts. It is the people who sense hatred and feel threatened most by Professor Churchill’s statements that have worked to harm him after he had taken his stand and spoke out with the truth.
In a transcript from the popular Fox News show, “Hannity & Colmes”, Hannity and Colmes fail to understand Professor Churchill's purpose as merely expressing his belief on what the US government did in the past. Professor Churchill did not incite the terrorist who caused the tragedy in the September 11 event, as Hannity and Colmes suggest, but rather he was pointing out what was the root cause of the terrorism we experienced. In his statement that, “roosting chicken come home to roost”, Professor Churchill did not speak against the US out of hatred for his country, but rather he tried to remark on the fact that for those who supported the US army, and as for the people who died in battle, these people can hardly be considered to be completely innocent. If his this original intentions were to try to overthrown the US government, then Professor Churchill may have indeed violated his First Amendment protections, but this is obviously not the case, and it remains that his original intention was never meant to show support for the act of terrorism, but only to point out how the US government has been at fault.
Professor Ward Churchill was right to quote Malcolm X, “chickens do indeed come home to roost.” There will be chickens coming back to America for many years to come whether US citizens like to acknowledge it or not. That is the way of life, what goes around comes around. Taking his stand on this issue, America has indeed commit many crimes all around the world, and waged many campaigns to invade and take over the lands of indigenous people, and this has helped found the US all the way through the post-World War II era. Such acts are crimes that the US has committed on both moral and legal terms. These are facts and there is not so much as a denial from the US of their occurrence. With imperialism aside, now the US government is trying to make their policies with the primary purpose of dominating and controlling the world financially. I believe that those are the key words and root causes which lead to acts of terrorism toward the US. There is no doubt that the US, or rather, the people who are at the top of the power structure in the US government, bear the responsibility for the crimes that America commits against other countries and people. All these crimes I mention, which are committed by the US, are supported by many types of evidence: documents, academic lectures, and textbooks. There is no question about it. The US has contributed to hurting people whether it is direct or indirect.
Even though Professor Churchill’s use of words in writing and speech is unpleasant and shakes people up a bit, his words get a reaction from people and makes them re-examine their beliefs. Although I do not totally agree with his way of using his words, and his harsh way of stating the truth, perhaps it is just his way of doing things. Besides, he is right that the US government has committed wrongs since the beginning. Crimes by the US have killed tens of millions of innocent people. Professor Churchill is also right about the fact that many American people are ignorant and thereby immoral by choice. His criticism is merely speaking for the people who are hurt by the US government. So who can we blame? From a young age, we were taught to believe what we supposed to believe like, “be careful what you say?” or “stick to a textbook” or “believe in the authority of the government's decisions.” Those are the beliefs and philosophy of life that Americans grow up with, that is what the government wants every one of us to be – people who believe in the system unquestioningly and absolutely.
From my perspective, regarding the accusation that Professor Churchill had violated the freedom of speech, he is innocent. Rather the University of Colorado, without truly understand the purpose of Professor Churchill’s essay, jumped to conclusions, and violated Professor Churchill’s rights by wrongly firing him. Even though his words are unpleasant and insensitive to many, he is not wrong and did not violate his rights, because his opinions are protected by the First Amendment of the US. He does not deserve to lose his job for that. What Professor Ward Churchill tried to do is take his stand on what he truly believes in. What he hopes to get out of his essays, even though it puts himself at stake, is for Americans to understand what truly happens now as a result of US policy. The bottom line of my argument is I do agree with Professor Churchill, chickens do “come home to roost,” and there are many chickens awaiting America for many years to come. With the policies of America at present, terrorism will continue to occur whether we like it or not. If the US is still choosing to be ignorant about this ruthless fact, only god know what may happen to America in the future.
Works cited:
"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. 02 Dec 2010.
Nordin, Nor. Online posting. "KAP Eng-215: Attack Ward Churchill". 22 Nov 2010. Laulima Discussion. 02 Dec 2010.
"The Bill of Rights." N.d. NARA Webpage. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 20 June 2004. [http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html]
"Ward Churchill vs. Hannity, Colmes & Horowitz." _FoxNews.com_ 7 Apr. 2006. 02 Dec 2006.
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190967,00.html]
Watanabe, Ryan. Online posting. "KAP Eng-215: Attack Ward Churchill". 22 Nov 2010. Laulima Discussion. 01 Dec 2010.
Log of Completed Activities
_X__Nov 9t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 15M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 22M- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X__Nov 29M- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X__Dec 3F- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Dec 6M- RD4 evaluations due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Dec 8W- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 9t- Intro to Paper #4. Read the Guidelines for Paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 15M- Complete readings for paper #4. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Nov 22M- Laulima Discussion: Attack Ward Churchill
_X__Nov 29M- Laulima Discussion: Defend Ward Churchill
_X__Dec 3F- RD4 due. [50 pts] Review the Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Dec 6M- RD4 evaluations due [50 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
_X__Dec 8W- FD4 due [150 pts] Review the guidelines. (Confirmation reply required.)
No comments:
Post a Comment