Churchill finally says his piece

By Thomas Coghlan, News Assistant
April 05, 2005

University of Colorado at Boulder professor Ward Churchill ended a two-month controversy April 5 which attracted national and local attention to EWU.

Before a crowd of nearly 500 people in the campus Mall, Churchill spoke on the situation which surrounded his appearance and the decision Feb. 4 by EWU President Stephen Jordan to cancel his invitation.

He was scheduled to speak on Native American issues when Deirdre Almeida hired him as the keynote speaker for Native American Awareness Week Nov. 2004.

Because of the media frenzy that has surrounded Churchill, and his subsequent cancellation, the original format that would have taken place in a university facility, which would allow for a question and answer period, was not possible.

The people gathered in the Mall cheered as he stepped up to the podium, “Hello my relatives, good to see you here. I am proud to be here,” said Churchill.

He began his speech by addressing the reason for the cancellation of his scheduled appearance.

“Security is an issue, now why would that be? Because somebody doesn’t like what I say. That’s called a hecklers veto, in legal parlance, its absolutely impermissible. Those who disagree are not empowered, entitled, legally authorized to prevent somebody from saying what they had to say based upon their disagreement with it. That’s not something that pertains just to academic institutions, that pertains to the society as a whole. To attempt to do that is an abuse of power; it is illegal. And that’s not some irresponsible professor with scraggly hair and a questionable identity and an anti-American outlook speaking to you, it was spoken this morning by a federal judge,” said Churchill.

Churchill made reference to the federal injunction that was turned down this morning, in federal court.

“Injunctive relief was not provided on the basis of a temporary restraining order, on an issue of timeliness,” said Churchill. “The judge felt that it would be inappropriate to issue an injunction based on the fact that there was not time to hold evidentiary hearings and other alternatives were available; however, it was stated clearly and in plain English that the Administration’s posture here, in attempting to cancel what it was that you had arranged for yourselves to be privy to, carried clear implications of unconstitutional prior restraint of speech, That is to say the judge said it was illegal too.”

He went on to explain that the regents, chancellors and presidents of universities have an obligation to “see that the academic mission of the institutions is fulfilled, not to prevent, not to shape it to the preference of their funders,” said Churchill.

Churchill also spoke about the effect that his appearance has created on campus as well as President Jordan’s application for a new job in Colorado.

“You have created a dynamic that is constructive and positive here, and it is on you to carry it forward. You have created a dynamic. You’ve got the opening. You’ve got the flux, and by the way you are gonna be rid of that old boy Jordan pretty soon I think. Because the whole reason he did it wasn’t even dereliction of duty. He just considered this institution to be his private property that he can use to posture and preen in order to position himself to become head of Metro State College in Denver, Colorado,” said Churchill.

“And I have got a message for him, despite the fact that he decided to be absent from campus today. I think he is in San Diego, which might be a safe distance. You all come down to Colorado, bub, you all come on down, I will be happy to see you there, and understand the nature of the situation there,” said Churchill.

Churchill also explained who he felt was hiring Jordan and what they stood for.

“He is going to be hired by a board that was appointed right down the line by Bill Owens, governor of Colorado, member of ACTA. ACTA the organization, which maintains the academic watch list, to people who say things that are not particularly comfortable and comforting to the William Bennett’s and George Bush’s of the world: that ACTA. He is an actual activist in his own right, in the nature of his activism, and has been annunciated by his collaborators, like Newt Gingrich on the Scarborough program. The nature of the activism is to use me as a kickoff in Colorado, because of the position of the nature of the governor there, and the nature of the legislature there, and the allegiances of board of regents there, to use it as a kickoff to establish a precedent to roll back critical voices, both in terms of the individual members of the professoriate that they find objectionable. But beyond that they use those professors as symbols of entire disciplines that don’t need to be part of the academic landscape. They have specifically mentioned things like Ethnic studies, under which American Indian studies, Afro-American studies, Asian American studies, Latino/Chicano studies would be falling, so that doesn’t need to be there according to them,” said Churchill.

The media showed up in force for the rally. News reporters and photographers weaved their way through the dense crowd to get pictures of Churchill’s speech. Churchill commented on the extensive media coverage.

“I have got more space dedicated to me in the local media last weekend, dissecting my baby pictures and the win-loss record of my high school 1965 football season, than they devoted to the pope’s death yesterday,” Churchill said.

He concluded his short, 15-minute speech by saying that the support that the EWU community has shown sets a precedent for the future of the institution as well as a much broader scope.

“In supporting my appearance here, you supported your own rights to have an institution that takes a different trajectory than the one they have in mind, in supporting those rights you are insuring the possibility of at least critical engagement, struggle, transformative change, not only in your lifetime, but more importantly, as it be dedicated to your children, and your children’s children and your children’s, children’s children, seven generations into the future, and that in a traditional indigenous way, is not only a right, it’s an obligation, and I think it’s an obligation that may have resonance with people who are not as well, we are in this together.”

This statement was followed by a round of clapping and cheering by most of the people that were there. Churchill’s last words, as he left the podium, were “Power to the people.”

Churchill speaks on Native activism

At shortly after 11 a.m. in an act described by its organizers as “civil disobedience,” Ward Churchill began to lecture and, for many, a crisis was over.

Dr. Deirdre Almeida, Director of the American Indian Studies Department spoke first and opened saying, “I would like to say to you, Professor Churchill, I would like to apologize to you for any disrespect that you have felt has been shown to you by the Eastern Washington administration over your visit here.”

Dr. Almeida praised Churchill’s character and perseverance.

“A man of your character and standing as a scholar, more importantly as a Native American scholar does not deserve that type of treatment, and I am thrilled you did not let that deter you from coming here and being with us today,” Churchill said.

Following Dr. Almeida, Keven Shipman, the EWU student representative for the Native American Student Association on the Ward Churchill matter introduced Professor Churchill first reading from a prepared statement, “In some ways this is one of the worst times in this University’s history because it has come down to an act of civil disobedience to hear a university professor speak. The actions of this (EWU’s) administration, our leaders, do not represent us. They do not speak for this university. When our leaders try to take our power, what can we do? We have to set a precedent, when our leaders want to abridge our freedoms and render us powerless we can organize and do it anyway. That is why this is a great day in this university’s history.”

Ward Churchill gave a 15-minute speech in which he highlighted his own beliefs as to EWU President Stephen Jordan's intentions when Jordan decided Feb. 4 to cancel Churchill's invitation to campus.

Professor Churchill then took the stage with a standing ovation from the select audience of students, media and administrators which had to be cleared through a checkpoint past EWU police.

Churchill began his speech by stating that Dr. Almeida’s apology was unnecessary, “The honor of being here is entirely mine. The entire country, this place, you people collectively, irrespective of your background, your outlook, your experiences, you have understood the issue and stood on your rights in a way that commands respect. Apologies to me, from anyone in this room, anyone who will be at the rally, anyone who is not hired as an administrator at EWU, are absolutely unnecessary.”

Professor Churchill next claimed a moral victory based on the written decision of a federal judge which stated there was a prima fascia case for prior restraint of free speech delivered at 6 a.m. from the 1st District Court but that the lack of timeliness in bringing the suit prevented the court from intervening.

Continuing his criticism of the EWU administration, Professor Churchill identified EWU President Stephen Jordan as having failed in his purpose as a university president to guarantee free speech.

He described President Jordan as an “absolute sleaze” and “slimy scumbag” who restrained Churchill’s rights of free speech for his own pecuniary enrichment, saying of Jordan, “that old boy (Jordan) is a top contender for the presidency of Metro State College in Denver, where I live. Where the government has announced, the governor has announced straight up that academic freedom was not to be allowed.”

Churchill then claimed there is a group of Republican politicians who have an agenda to limit academic freedom and free speech, identifying Gov. Bill Owens of Colorado, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, Second Lady Lynn Cheney, Newt Gingrich and conservative education activist David Horowitz.

“There are ‘lines’ beyond which you should not step, in terms of expressing opinion,” Churchill said.

Churchill said that they have an “academic watch-list” of professors with controversial opinions.

Churchill strongly disagreed with the group he labeled as ACTA and others of their ilk saying, “the statutory lines have to do with the sanction and promotion of criminal activity. It is not the purpose or the place of the governor or the board of regents, or a university administration, to make a determination on criminal sanctions. It is a job of law enforcement authorities.”

Churchill further believes that much of the attention he has garnered is due to his Native American activism.

“It’s no coincidence that the kick off on all this controversy began exactly 24 hours after the press conference announcing our understanding of the implications of a decision by a Denver jury regarding a Columbus Day demonstration in the streets of Denver. 300-plus defendants and eight leaders, seven others and myself, went to trial and were acquitted on all counts,” Churchill said.

Addressing the contention surrounding his Native American ancestry, Churchill said that his band has been threatened by the workload involved with his sudden notoriety and their proximity to a large entity in collaboration with the Federal Government, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

Crowell argues with Native students

After the rally, former University of Hawai’i-Manoa student Grant Crowell gave a response to the 15-minute speech to a small crowd.

“That was a joke. He is a free speech wuss,” Crowell said.

Some EWU students defended Churchill and began to argue with Crowell.

Crowell suggested to the small crowd that Churchill was not a Native American.

When one student defended Churchill’s ethnicity Crowell replied, “You’re too pale. He’s all cracker or all Native.”

Crowell called the 15-minute rally a joke. He claimed that Churchill had previously been charged with plagiarism, and called his speech “pure, unadulterated hypocrisy.”

A member of the crowd Crowell was talking to suggested that Crowell go up to the microphone if he wanted to talk. Crowell then walked over to the podium that Churchill had previously given his 15-minute speech, but didn’t make a speech because the microphone was no longer turned on.

Crowell previously worked on the student newspaper at the University of Hawai’i-Manoa. He claimed that Churchill tried to deny his free speech.

The former cartoonist paid for a two-page ad in The Easterner which ran March 29.

Lillian Hungerford of MECHA or the Machistas of Eastern Washington University responded to the ad by saying, “That takes a lot of time and energy to put a two-page ad in the newspaper. That’s not a group, it’s an individual. I would hope that that was a paid ad, and that I didn’t pay for it.”

Crowell referred to a speech Churchill made on Feb. 8, 2005 at the University of Colorado where Churchill made a comment regarding The Ninth Amendment.

Churchill said at the University of Colorado speech, “Under Article Six of the Constitution of the United States, those are the supreme law of the land, and among them, are fundamental human dignity and celebration of the process initiated by Christopher Columbus. Celebrating that guy in any respect at all is a celebration of those conditions. That’s a denial of fundamental human dignity, that’s a denial of my Ninth Amendment rights and you don’t have a right to do that.”

Crowell said, “I don’t agree with his stance on Columbus Day. It’s an affront to human dignity.”

The Ninth Amendment says, “The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Crowell said that he was in Spokane visiting a client and Churchill’s appearance just happened to coincide with it.

Hungerford of MECHA said about Churchill’s EWU speech, “It just is an inspiration. It makes us want to investigate what is really going on. We understand how history books have tainted what’s really going on.”

Hungerford, who went to Churchill’s private speech at 11 a.m., said he talked a lot about activism.

“It’s good to know about those things, but if you don’t do anything about it well then,” Hungerford said.

Ad causes controversy

Former University of Hawai’I-Manoa student Grant Crowell said his two-page advertisement in The Easterner March 29 against Ward Churchill’s April 5 visit to EWU was not against the speaker’s free speech rights.

“Churchill’s rather offensive and insulting to everyone’s intelligence,” Crowell said. “Ward Churchill forgets that free speech is both ways. You have to support people who you find repugnant. Churchill is interested not in free speech, but political speech.”

Crowell said that Churchill’s interpretation of the Ninth Amendment superceding the First Amendment was an ill-argued point by the University of Colorado professor.

“There has never been a single precedent or a court decision backing that,” Crowell said. “He’s taking an angle from the Right to stifle free speech and only wants to allow his political speech.”

Crowell said that he felt his advertisement was merely exercising his free speech right.

“Ward is being paid to speak. I’m paying for mine,” Crowell said. “Attempting to try to ban any speech is laziness. I don’t like it when groups on the Left or the Right use the term ‘hate speech’ to stifle free speech, which is only based on emotion.”

Native Studies adjunct professor and graduate student Keven Shipman said that he didn’t agree with the advertisement itself, but was not against Crowell’s right to print it.

“He has the right to say anything he wants to say,” Shipman said. “That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. His beliefs are very high-priced, expensive beliefs. I think he has a dull mind and a blazing pocketbook.”

Shipman said he was not upset that The Easterner had printed the cartoon-laden advertisement, but felt his own cartoons have been edited for content by the paper since last spring.

“I was making a statement that I felt Jordan looked the other way when it came to donors and alumni in regards to the Savage logo,” Shipman said. “But this guy can have a cartoon with Churchill with a swastika. (Crowell) has free speech at a very high price.”

The Easterner Editor In Chief Scott Sawyer said that there was a distinct difference between Crowell’s advertisement and Shipman’s cartoon submissions.

“The ad that ran was a paid advertisement, what Keven submitted was editorial content,” Sawyer said. “It was a staff decision not to run Keven’s cartoon as is. We decided to run the advertisement only after consulting with the Student Board of Publications.”

Churchill files injunction

A motion for a temporary restraining order or injunction was filed in U.S. District Court against the EWU President Stephen Jordan and the Board of Trustees in order to allow controversial professor Ward Churchill to speak on campus April 5.

Churchill, EWU students Ryan Yellow John, Martha Tulee and Cheney resident Molly Cook filed the motion April 4, said Scott Wheat, attorney for the group.

The motion asked that EWU provide a university building for Churchill to speak.

Wheat, an adjunct professor for the Native Studies Department, said that the motion was filed after exhausting all diplomatic efforts for Jordan to reconsider his Churchill cancellation.

“It was after protracted efforts to reconsider the Churchill engagement that our avenues were exhausted,” Wheat said.

Wheat said that the cancellation of Churchill’s speaking engagement was questionable by the administration.

“When of the last two years has the president cancelled a speaker?” Wheat said. “Has it happened a single time in four years? Why is it that Ward Churchill has been singled-out for cancellation?”

Wheat said that the cancellation amounts to a “heckler’s veto.”

“Jordan is citing the potential conduction of listeners not the speaker, there is a difference,” Wheat said. “If Ward Churchill yelled ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, that would be a different matter.”

Wheat said that the group already had found roadblocks placed on them by university administration.

“We find alternative funding and Jordan starts reviewing NASA’s bank accounts,” Wheat said.

Wheat said he wants to believe that Jordan made the decision to cancel Ward Churchill based on credible evidence.

“Sometimes, the U.S. Constitution protects us from our own self-interests,” Wheat said.

The complaint filed with the motion reads that “The defendants, acting under color of state law, have declined to permit Professor Ward Churchill to make a public speech on the campus of Eastern Washington University (E.W.U.), despite the fact that all administrative prerequisites and regulations have been met and complied with.”

The complaint said that EWU Native Studies Director Dr. Deirdre Almeida, entered into a contract Nov. 2, 2004 with Professor Churchill in which Mr. Churchill was to speak at a public engagement on the E.W.U. campus. Almeida received administrative approval Dec. 2004 for the engagement to be held in the Pence Union Building’s multipurpose room April 5 at 11 a.m. and that the contract with Churchill specified a facility which was a “climate-controlled, well-lighted suitable place for the engagement,” the complaint said.

“Professor Churchill’s comments have been the subject of an unprecedented national media frenzy. Virtually every media outlet in America, both electronic and print, have run stories on Professor Churchill’s comments,” the complaint said.

“Security has nothing to do with the defendants’ canceling Professor Churchill’s public speech. To date, the plaintiffs are unaware of any specific, credible security threats regarding Professor Churchill’s speech at E.W.U,” the complaint said. “Instead of providing a forum for Professor Churchill to set forth his ideas in the quintessential marketplace of ideas, the defendants have chosen to issue a prior restraint against him, prohibiting him from speaking to the public on the E.W.U. campus.”

The group requested that the U.S. District Court prevent the university from canceling Churchill’s scheduled April 5 speech, that EWU be prevented “from in any way retaliating against any of the Plaintiffs for their activities associated with speaking out on matters of public concern or associated with their participation in these judicial proceedings to enforce theirs and others’ constitutional rights” and that the U.S. District Court “award plaintiffs their costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

Background on Churchill

With Ward Churchill’s visit to EWU completed, there have been countless rumors flying about the man behind the infamous essay.

Churchill has written several books and articles and is a tenured professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He claims Native American ethnicity and is the co-chairman of the American Indian Movement.

In some of his works, Churchill has shed unfavoring light on the United States and has said things to the effect of the United States is an imperial power with a history of genocide.

According to the Wikipedia, Churchill’s 1998 essay A Little Master of Genocide was a comparison through history of the extermination of North American Indians and other genocides in history, such as the ones in Africa, Gypsies, Poles and Jews by the Nazis.

The Wikipedia also said that in Churchill’s 2002 essay Perversions of Justice he made detailed arguments that the United States adapted its legal system to gain control over the Native American people. He researched the evolution of the federal Indian law and concluded that the premises included in those laws spilled over into other minority groups in the United States.

The essay that got the most reaction, was the one that he wrote in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. The essay, Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, called that the victims inside the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns,” and he said that they were indeed victims, but he questioned their innocence.

Besides the stir that Churchill has caused with his written works, there have also been some questions about his true ethnicity. Churchill said that he is Native American, although he is less than one-quarter, the amount that is necessary to be viewed as Native American by the federal government. He said that he is an associate member of the Keetoowah tribe, but Keetoowah tribe does not recognize associate members as members of the band. Their requirement specifically states that members cannot be recognized unless they are one-quarter degree of Cherokee Indian ancestry.

The Denver Post did a review of Churchill’s matrilineal genealogy on Ancestry.com, and the newspaper said that no evidence was shown that he had Native American ancestry.

The records said that all of the matrilineal ancestors of Churchill are listed as either “white” or as “race unknown.”

Easterner Staff members Troy Kirby, Tammy Marshall, Kelsey Howard and Van Carter contributed to the content of this article.