Ward Churchill – The Nutty Professor Confusing Free Speech with Paid Speech

George C. Landrith

Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor, made the news by arguing that those who were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks were not innocent victims, but actually “little Eichmanns” who deserved their fiery fate. For the record, Adolf Eichmann was the Chief of the Jewish Office of the Nazi Gestapo during World War II and implemented Hitler’s “Final Solution” to exterminate European Jews. According to Ward Churchill, employees who had the misfortune to work in the World Trade Center and the heroic firefighters who rushed into the towering infernos to save lives, were no better than a convicted Nazi mass-murderer and butcher named Eichmann. Little wonder, the nutty professor’s writings have drawn so much attention.

Ward Churchill defends his writings by invoking the First Amendment and claiming the right to free speech. There is no doubt that Ward Churchill’s rantings – no matter how absurd, offensive or poorly argued – are protected by the First Amendment. But what does that mean? Ward Churchill thinks it means the taxpayers are constitutionally required to pay him to speak and write whatever he pleases. Ward Churchill believes that free speech gives him a right to paid speech.

Ward Churchill isn’t very bright. On any objective level, his papers are feebly written, poorly argued, and badly documented. When I first read his now infamous paper defaming the victims of the September 11th attacks, it was difficult to believe it was the work product of a tenured college professor –
even more so for one who chairs a university department. It read more like a hastily typed blog by a high school student than an academic paper from a professor. There is no question that the University of Colorado is embarrassed by Ward Churchill’s writings, but in all honestly, the university should be even more embarrassed that someone of Churchill’s mediocre academic credentials and ability and painfully poor writing skills is now the public face of the university. Moreover, it now appears Ward Churchill obtained his position as Chair of the Ethnic Studies Department by misrepresenting his credentials and falsely claiming to be a Native American.

But let’s get back to the First Amendment issue.

The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Please note that the First Amendment does not state that taxpayers must pay people to exercise their rights of free speech and free press. Ward Churchill’s speeches and writings have not been made illegal. He has not been threatened with prosecution, prison, exile, or any fines. Ward Churchill continues to say and write stupid and offensive things. He has that right. But because taxpayers are understandably not happy to be paying Ward Churchill for his ridiculous and offensive speech, he claims his rights are being threatened. Thus, free speech is paid speech – at least in this nutty professor’s mind.

Ward Churchill argues that his tenured status plus the First Amendment requires taxpayers to pay him for his speech. Again, Ward Churchill isn’t much of scholar and so the fact that he can’t tell the difference between constitutional law and contract law isn’t surprising. The First Amendment guarantees that we may speak and write our mind. Ward Churchill has this right and no one is trying to take it from him. Ward Churchill also has an employment contract with the University of Colorado. The terms of his contract govern under what circumstances he may be fired. Presumably, he may be fired for a variety of reasons – including poor job performance and lying about his credentials and background to get his job.

But the First Amendment and his employment contract cannot be merged into some sort of mega constitutional-contractual shield that allows him to say and write whatever he wants and then force taxpayers to pay him about $100,000 a year to do it. That gives “free” speech a whole new meaning. Free speech is not paid speech. What Ward Churchill wants is the right to paid speech. But paid speech is not a constitutional right. If you don’t believe me, read it.

###

Mr. Landrith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was Business Editor of the Virginia Journal of Law and Politics. He had a successful law practice in business and litigation. In 1994 and 1996, Mr. Landrith was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's Fifth Congressional District. He served on the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Landrith is an adjunct professor at the George Mason School of Law. He is recognized as an authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, federalism, global warming, and property rights.

george@ff.org