About
Academics
Multisport
Photography
Writing
Home

 

Saturday, February 05, 2005

On Silencing Dissent

Academic freedom, freedom of speech, and political expression are key issues brought up by the recent controversy surrounding Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado.

Undergirding each of these freedoms is the very principle that makes democratic processes possible—the ability for citizens to discuss, debate and think about issues in the public realm. In ancient Greece, the agora was the public meeting place, a place for citizens to come together to engage in speech and action. This public space formed the core of the polis—“the organization of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together” (Hannah Arendt, 1958, The Human Condition, p. 198).

How different the modern agora is from that of ancient Greece. In place of the polis and the public space for citizens to meet, today our agora acts primarily as a meeting place for consumers. We come together in public at shopping malls and markets to exchange products, rather than ideas. We are a non-political community in the original sense of the term politics, a dangerous state for any society aspiring to democracy.

The reactionary voices involved in the so-called Churchill affair, from Governor Bill Owens to lawmakers and university regents, have demonstrated an important lesson in politics: It is easier to simply reject an idea—and dismiss (quite literally, by firing, executing, etc.) a person behind an idea—than to deal with the idea itself.

Dealing with the idea itself requires entertaining the perspective entailed in the idea in order to evaluate it on its own merits. Such a path to discovery is frightening for those who fear the consequences that understanding might bring—the possibility of upending their own world view through potentially valid arguments. It is easier, indeed, to simply reject an idea outright without consideration, rather than to attempt to formulate logical arguments in response.

‘Fire Ward Churchill!’ it is implored, a charge led by Colorado Governor Bill Owens.

“—But is that an argument?” as Ludwig Wittgenstein once wrote (On Certainty, 1969, p. 20). “Is it not simply the rejection of an idea?”

Indeed, it is merely the rejection of an idea; and rejection of the person who dared utter the idea in the first place.

I am much more interested in arguments that critically explore the merits or shortcomings of the idea. If Churchill’s detractors were to engage in such public discussion and critique, then they would be truly practicing politics. As it is, they merely show contempt for the foundation of political democracy—true public debate and discussion about issues concerning society.

The ability for citizens to exchange challenging (and yes, even pointed and unpopular) ideas in the public realm is the crux of practicing democracy. If we are to gain broader understandings of the world and work toward recognizing and improving society, then we must spend more time practicing democratic politics.

Homework for Governor Owens, Colorado lawmakers, CU Regents, and concerned citizens:

• First, read Churchill's essay ("Some People Push Back") and book (On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, 2003). You may just learn something or at the least, develop some sound counter-arguments to address his ideas rather than simply dismissing them without thought.
• Read Hannah Arendt's discussion of the 'banality of evil' for a broader context of Churchill's use of the term 'little Eichmanns' (Hannah Arendt, 1964, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality and Evil).
• Contribute to the public discussion surrounding US policy towards international law, past actions in world affairs, and an examination of the broader issues surrounding the events of 11 September 2001 (rather than shutting down discussion.)

See also:

• Ward Churchill Statement (1 Feb 2005)
• American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Statement on Professor Ward Churchill Controversy (3 Feb 2005)

- Adam