From the Writings of David Horowitz: March 18, 2010
It will probably come as a surprise to many people, both friend and foe alike, that I am opposed to any attempt to fire Ward Churchill for the essay (now part of a book) that has become notorious in which he denounces his own country as a genocidal empire, supports America’s terrorist enemies, and says that 9/11 was a case of the “chickens coming home to roost.”
We live in country whose cornerstone document is a Bill of Rights that guarantees Americans a right to make fools of themselves if they so desire. State institutions like the University of Colorado are forbidden by our Constitution from firing people for expressing opinions, however offensive, idiotic or evil (and Churchill’s comments on 9/11 qualify as all three). If, on the other hand, as some have charged, Churchill is not really a Native American as he claims, then of course he should be fired for fraud.
Yes, Churchill is a self-declared ally of our enemies in the terrorist war against us. But so are many academic leftists, including those now rallying to his defense. A decent university system with serious academic standards would probably not have hired Churchill in the first place, let alone promoted him to a position of responsibility and honor as the chair of the Ethnic Studies Department. But that does not give the regents of the university the right to fire him because he has embarrassed them now.
The real question is why wasn’t anybody embarrassed before? In 1998, to cite one example, Churchill published a book – Pacificism as Pathology – which was essentially an argument for violent revolution to overthrow America’s democracy. It was dedicated to an American terrorist who blew herself up while making a bomb intended to kill Army recruits and their dates at a social dance at Fort Dix. Why weren’t any of his colleagues or superiors upset about this?
– Ward Churchill is Just the Beginning
February 9, 2005
If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then click here to submit. Please include:
- “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
- A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
- Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
- Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)
Mr. Horowitz wrote: "We live in country whose cornerstone document is a Bill of Rights that guarantees Americans a right to make fools of themselves if they so desire. State institutions like the University of Colorado are forbidden by our Constitution from firing people for expressing opinions, however offensive, idiotic or evil (and Churchill’s comments on 9/11 qualify as all three)…."
I am fairly liberal where it comes to offensive speech. I've been the target of much offensive speech from members of a group list I moderate. That having been said, I've got a question for David Horowitz or David Swindle. It seems to me, this – Mr. Horowitz's view – is a libertarian view. Are there any limits to the freedom of speech in either David's view or is the First Amendment absolute? In some European states, Holocaust denial is a criminal offense; in Austria, Belgium Czech Republic, France, Germany; unlike the US. Abraham Lincoln greatly circumscribed speech during the war. Pro-slavery, anti-abolitionists in the media and Congress were prosecuted for subversive speech. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
I can't speak for David but I know he's very strongly first amendment and anti-censorship.
My positions are comparable. I'm a bit of a first amendment zealot. Though obviously stuff like yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't covered. I think it should be entirely legal to print Holocaust denial literature (as well as other anti-Semitic and racist literature.)
I'd have to look at the historical arguments re:Lincoln/Habeas Corpus before weighing in more on that. That strikes me as more complicated and I don't like to sound off when I haven't studied something adequately.
I've discussed this with libertarian-minded folks. Many are supporters of Ron Paul. By and large the libertarians (I've run into) hate Abraham Lincoln for a variety of reasons as many hated Bush for the Patriot Act. It seems to me, in time of war, we might have to (probably will have to) give up some of our liberties; less so if our leaders were not politically correct as we are seeing with this one. I suppose Churchill would easily fit the definition of a traitor since he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You might think I am extreme. My view is this. If it could be proven in a court of law (witnesses, etc.) that a Muslim-American citizen openly celebrated, he or she should not be welcome in the US. He should be deported. And I might be willing to include his leftist fellow travelers in that. That is how strongly I feel about this war. So, I guess I am not a free speech absolutist, especially when our existence is threatened.
What if (by way of example) a Muslim or a leftist professor like Mr. Churchill urged Muslim students and their leftist allies to beat (with pipes) Jewish students that take part in any pro-Israel rallies? That would be pretty evil. Does the same standard apply in this situation. If not, where do you draw the line?
Legally I don't think someone could be arrested for that. I could be wrong though. If a group got together and conspired to commit assault then that would be something else.
CU management thought it fired Churchill because he violated a number of academic principles, e.g., plagiarism and falsifying his credentials. Seems bizarre that a mere judge could alter CU management motives by decree. IMO, it doesn't make any difference what the judge ruled because their intent cannot be changed without charging management with one or another crime of deception or obstruction. At the end, CU is a better place without him.
Preposterous. This isn't Minority Report: we don't go around arresting people for what they might do — or what their work might lead to. We must punish people or restrict their liberties only for actual violations of the liberty of others — not for potential ones. You have the right to be an idiot and an anti-Semite. And if you have the right to be one, you have the right to, you know, actually be one — that is: to write about it, too.
We don't go around arresting people "for what they might do?" Why is it that a person who threatens to murder the president of the United States "can be" prosecuted for a class D felony under United States Code if we do not go around arresting people for what they might do?
Oh yes. How come if an estranged husband only threatens his wife, she can get a restraining order from the judge, because of what "he might do?"