Ward Churchill

I’m at a loss for words.

In class we discussed the effectiveness of Churchill’s argument. The tone he took in approaching such a sensitive subject. And the class seems to agree that he could have presented his information and perspective from a different angle—a little more tact and foresight and a little less insult. I was very much put off by Churchill’s article, but his response to the criticism (and threats) seemed to be well-organized, providing more background to his analysis.

I’m still confused about how the article was brought out. Was this not originally part of a book he had published? It’s hard not to keep in mind that if this was a part of a larger piece of publication, then there is the possibility of missing the whole of his argument. His response seems to address some of the underlying issues for his publication and further explains his intentions in writing as he did. He says, "My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences." There seems to be nothing wrong with his argument, as presented in this case. Perhaps he should have approached the article with the same calculated judgment of the possible response of the audience at large.

I really don’t know. As far as freedom of speech, I feel he has every right to address certain issues, but at the same time, working for a university puts him under the university’s discretion.