Take, for example, the group Students for Academic Freedom. This organization seeks to mobilize conservative students on campuses to combat an alleged hegemony of liberals in higher education. In 2003, Colorado became the first skirmish in this war. The group’s founder, David Horowitz, accused CU faculty of liberal bias and discrimination against conservative students. Inspired by Horowitz, a Republican State Representative introduced the Academic Bill of Rights. In March of 2004, CU President Elizabeth Hoffman achieved a diplomatic compromise in which the leaders of higher education in Colorado signed a Memorandum of Understanding stipulating that students should not be penalized for their political beliefs and committing the universities to ensure a diversity of political opinion. Although David Horowitz celebrated the Memorandum of Understanding as a victory, the view here is that President Hoffman smartly defused a difficult situation (1). Colorado dodged this particular bullet, yet measures inspired by Horowitz’s conservative activism are now being debated in more than a dozen other states.

The degree to which this earlier controversy paved the way for the current investigation of CU Professor Ward Churchill is difficult to assess. Churchill’s comments and the ensuing crisis are well known. In an essay written in 2001, Churchill argued that violence against the U.S. is inevitable if we continue to support unpopular and militaristic regimes abroad, Churchill declared:

As to those in the World Trade Center…. True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire--the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved--and they did so both knowingly and willingly…. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it (2).

There have been many responses to Churchill’s words, of course. Most people see this as a offensive formulation. To many, he simplifies complex issues of innocence and guilt and ignores the fact that most victims at the WTC were working-class people, the janitors and waitresses arriving early for work. But to numerous others--especially national conservatives like Bill O’Reilly or Republican Colorado Governor Bill Owens--Churchill’s comments constitute treason and support for terrorism. Governor Owens demanded that Churchill be fired for his opinions, calling him “anti-American” and “far outside the mainstream of civil discourse and useful academic work.” “No one wants to infringe on Mr. Churchill’s right to express himself,” declared the governor, “But we are not compelled to accept his pro-terrorist views at state taxpayer subsidy” (3). The Regents of the University of Colorado called an emergency meeting, at which students seeking to express their support for Churchill were forcibly removed. Following this the Regents and University leaders announced that the interim Chancellor of the University and two deans would conduct an investigation into Churchill’s writings and speeches to determine if there existed grounds for dismissal.

In the weeks that followed, while the chancellor’s investigation proceeded, conservative radio talk show hosts, newspaper columnists, state legislators, and national figures continued their attacks. State legislators drafted bills which would give the legislature control over tenure decisions, or create uniform tenure procedures for every institution in Colorado, or even eliminate tenure altogether. One Republican legislator introduced legislation to reduce the state’s appropriation to CU by $100,000, roughly the amount of Churchill’s salary. Rocky Mountain News columnist Mike Rosen, referring to faculty concerns that the attacks on Churchill would have a “chilling effect” on university life, declared “Good. It’s about time.” Indeed, he dreamed the Churchill scandal might provide an opportunity to turn CU into a “bastion of conservative thought” (4). Meanwhile, from many different corners came increasingly serious charges against Ward Churchill. He has now been accused of lying about being an American Indian as well as engaging in research fraud, intimidation of other scholars, and artistic piracy. In this difficult and politically charged climate, University of Colorado officials responded inconsistently. They became panicked over loyalty oaths, which every faculty member had been required to sign upon being hired. No oath could be found for Churchill, and so the University required that every department locate an oath for every faculty member. Those who had no oath in their files were required to sign one again, and have it notarized, within only a few days. On the other hand, CU President Elizabeth Hoffman met with faculty and declared that we are “in dangerous times again,” comparing the current political atmosphere to McCarthyism. Politicians responded immediately by calling for her resignation. Days later, she did resign from the presidency. Some have called her a martyr to academic freedom but the truth is Hoffman’s presidency had been weakened by several factors.

Over the last two years, Colorado has been forced to weather a tremendous storm of controversy and declining state support for higher education. That broader crisis is critical for understanding the response of CU’s leaders to the current attacks on academic freedom. Charges of sexual violence and use of alcohol and drugs in football recruiting, and the refusal of the university’s fund-raising arm to open its accounts to public scrutiny, greatly weakened the university’s standing with the public, the legislature, and the governor. Government investigations and civil suits put CU leaders on the defensive--and to many observers Hoffman’s attempts to bring the athletic program under control and to create an environment intolerant of sexual violence did not go far enough. Meanwhile such troubles increased the desire of politicians and the regents to find ways of exercising greater control over the university. This made it much more difficult for Hoffman to maneuver in the current charged atmosphere.

Of course, the crisis in Colorado is part of a stifling of dissent occurring across the country in the wake of 9/11. It is likewise a skirmish in a much broader attack on higher education. Here in Colorado, state funding of higher education has fallen precipitously in recent years. CU receives now less than 9 percent of its funding from the state of Colorado. The state has also recently passed a voucher system for higher education, attempting to further bring the principles of the free market into the center of educational policies and funding. Governor Owens has been a leader in these developments. Once a rising star in the Republican Party, Owens has seen his fortunes decline as a result of economic troubles as well as electoral losses in 2004, when Democrats won control over both legislative houses. Many see Owens’ prominent role in the Churchill case as an attempt to gain back some of his lost luster.

On March 24, 2005, interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano released his committee’s report on Ward Churchill. It included three main findings. The committee found that Churchill’s comments were protected under the First Amendment. However, they found in two other areas that the charges against Churchill merited further assessment, and they asked the University’s Standing Committee on Research Misconduct--a committee composed of CU faculty members--to undertake this investigation. Specifically, they asked the committee to assess whether Churchill had engaged in research fraud, fabrication, or plagiarism, and also whether he misrepresented himself as an “American Indian to gain credibility, authority, and an audience by using an Indian voice for his scholarly writings and speeches” (5).

Throughout this crisis, faculty members have struggled to find an effective response. The release of the chancellor’s report, just days ago as I write this, will likely complicate that mission. In the early weeks there was a strong sense of horror at the desire by so many, including the governor, to limit freedom of speech. Nearly two hundred CU faculty members signed a resolution that defended Churchill’s right to express his opinion and demanded that the investigation be halted as an affront to the moral foundations of the University. Some faculty members believed even then, however, that the investigation should continue because complex issues regarding Churchill’s scholarly integrity and conduct must be resolved. If CU refused to examine his case thoroughly, it was argued, this would encourage the legislature to mount its own investigation. Now with the release of the report, relief is palpable among the faculty that the chancellor has defended Churchill’s right to freedom of speech. Yet serious issues remain. Particularly now that University officials have defended Churchill’s right to free speech, faculty in increasing numbers will likely support the chancellor’s decision to refer the matter of possible research misconduct to a faculty committee. Yet many others continue to be troubled by the political motivations of any such assessment. No investigation would be happening had Churchill not uttered unpopular opinions, some argue. Any discussion of Churchill’s possible research misconduct, in this view, cannot be extricated from political efforts to repress dissent. The decision to investigate Churchill’s claims of being Native American, on the other hand, seems to most faculty members with whom I have spoken to be unprecedented and deeply troubling. They disagree, however, on whether it is necessary. Some believe that for reasons of pragmatism and/or professional ethics the chancellor needed to further assess Churchill’s claims.

In the heart of CU’s campus sits Dalton Trumbo Fountain, dedicated in 1993 to honor the CU alumnus and screenwriter/novelist who was blacklisted and jailed for ten months when he refused to testify before HUAC. Trumbo Fountain is the place where people meet to express and exchange views, and it is where the protests regarding Churchill have occurred. The irony of College Republicans meeting at Trumbo Fountain to demand Ward Churchill’s dismissal seems lost on many people. This is just one example of the broader historical context surrounding the debate over Ward Churchill. CU has long experienced troubles over issues of dissent and the sometimes-invasive power of the state legislature. In the 1920s state legislators cut financial support for a year after CU President George Norlin refused to submit to its demands, instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, that all Catholic and Jewish professors be fired. In contrast, during the 1950s CU fired Morris Judd, a professor of philosophy, for his alleged radicalism. Judd’s main crime consisted of hosting a reception for Paul Robeson. CU President Robert Stearns claimed at the time that it was necessary to investigate and eliminate radicals lest the legislature decide to take even more strenuous steps. (Only in 2004 did CU issue a formal apology for firing Judd.)

Faculty, students, and staff walking the paths of the CU campus these days find themselves wondering, once again, “Is Colorado in America?” As in 1914, battles fought in Colorado will likely shape those elsewhere for some time to come. 

---

Endnotes

1. David Horowitz, “Victory in Colorado!”, at <http://studentsforacademicfreedom.org/ archive/September2004/VictoryinColoradoDhstory091304.htm>.

2. Churchill’s essay, “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” can be found at <http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news& c=recent&view=9.>.

3. Governor Owens’ letter is available in the archives of the Boulder Daily Camera, at <http://www.colorado.gov/governor/press/ february05/churchill.pdf>.

4. Mike Rosen, “CU Is Worth Fighting For,” Rocky Mountain News, posted March 4, 2005, <http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/ article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3592594,00.html>.

5. Interim Chancellor Phil DeStefano, Arts and Sciences Dean Todd Gleeson, and Law School Dean David Getches, “Report on Conclusion of Preliminary Review in the Matter of Professor Ward Churchill,” at <http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html>.