Actions, Not Words

Let’s take the following two propositions as givens: first, Ward Churchill’s comments about the victims of 9/11 were idiotic and appalling, and second, that he committed a number of intellectual sins regarding his scholarship.

Now, let’s look at Mark Hyman’s commentary on the issue. He begins by rehashing Churchill’s comments, then summarizes the findings of a University of Colorado faculty investigation of Churchill’s scholarship that found intellectual sloppiness and misconduct in a variety of specific cases.

What’s troubling is the easy transition makes from criticizing Churchill’s public comments about 9/11 and his call for his dismissal. It’s essential that we make a distinction between Churchill’s views and his academic practices. While it’s fine, and indeed proper, to take issue with Churchill’s rhetoric and to chastise him for it in the public sphere, it is dangerous to suggest that his views constitute a reason for his dismissal, and that’s what Hyman’s editorial does.

I’m afraid that Hyman is simply one of many people who don’t have any problem with targeting Churchill for particular scrutiny because of his views. Perhaps problems in Churchill’s scholarship would have raised red flags on their own. But it’s chilling to think that because people voices unpopular views, their employer might be pressured into finding a reason to fire them. This would be true in any profession, but particularly academia, where the freedom to voice controversial views is an intrinsic part of the job. Even if Churchill’s intellectual crimes are deserving of his dismissal, this wouldn’t make it ethical for him to be targeted for the fine-tooth comb treatment simply because his public statements in other arenas and on other topics were objectionable. The ends don’t justify the means.

But Hyman’s editorial uncomfortably juxtaposes a critique of Churchill’s views with an attack on his scholarly methods (or lack thereof), suggesting that both are evidence of the man’s unfitness to teach. And that’s dead wrong. Perhaps we’ll never know if Churchill was targeted for intellectual destruction because of what he said about 9/11, but the fact that plenty of people out there, including Hyman, seem to think it would be fine if he was is scary enough.

I don’t know all the details of the committee’s report on Churchill, but from what I know, I certainly believe strong disciplinary action (up to and including termination) is likely proper. But let’s be absolutely clear on why he’s being punished: it’s his actions, not his ideas.

Come to think of it, the same can be said of Hyman himself. As appalling as the content of his ideas are, simply voicing risible political opinions is not his primary sin. Rather, it’s his utter lack of honesty, his systematic distortions, his failure to practice basic journalistic ethics, and his abuse of the local airwaves to present one-sided and unanswered political screeds rather than allowing for their public use that makes him such an affront to public discourse.

Both Hyman and Churchill have the right to hold and express whatever vulgar ideas they have; it’s when they abuse their position and violate the basic ethical codes of their respective professions that they deserve to be shown the door.

And that’s The Counterpoint.

Hyman Index: 4.60