Ward Churchill and the WTC Victims/Targets

Freedom of Speech Worthy of Protection, Poor Scholarship Worthy of Dismissal, or Both?

Is Freedom of Speech Equal to Freedom from Consequences?

Ward Churchill is the Colorado professor who has been in the news lately for opining that the victims in the WTC were worthy targets deserving of death. He should not be censored and prevented from spouting his opinions, but should he keep his job and be paid to espouse them? Does it matter that his opinion is not only offensive and inflammatory, but stupid and poorly constructed? Can't an academic instution have minimal standards for scholarship including those ideas that are far outside the mainstream? If an English professor starts claiming that punctuation impairs communication, can't the University require that there be an academic basis for the opinion to retain him, or is the state stuck forever with maintaining the English Professor even though he has no reasonable basis for his opinion and is teaching students information that is false? Why would Churchill's opinions be protected from academic standards, but the hypothetical English professor not?

Churchill's main problem is that he is arguing that the victims were targeted because each was individually culpable, and not collateral damage for a valid target. This opinion is academically and factually indefensible, and therefore unworthy of protection and payment from an academic institution. Churchill's ideas fail also because his support for the attacks demands adherence to the cause to be valid, and Churchill's own statements show this is not accurate.

Can a Civilian Office Tower be A Valid Target?

You can craft an argument that the US center of gravity is our economy, the WTC is an economic target, and therefore can be a valid target in war. The ball bearing factories in WWII were similarly valid targets, though the workers individually were just making a living, and trying to feed their kids. They were collateral damage to the war effort, not evil people deserving to be targeted. Another issue is that even if it is a valid target, you must take reasonable efforts to reduce collateral damage. Attacking the WTC at night, for example, would presumably limit the number of deaths, while still causing incredible economic harm. By contrast, bombing raids in WWII during the day were more likely to hit the actual target, and therefore reduced collateral damages in the cities. Arguably you can say that the WTC hijackers were not skilled pilots and needed daylight to hit their targets, but I think the size of the WTC and lights make that argument a poor one. Al Qaeda could have had as much economic impact attacking at midnight and risked far fewer lives, so even on the reasonable collateral damage question, the attack fails.

Valid Targets, or Collateral Damage

Far from trying to defend the numbers of collateral dead, however, Churchill claims that the workers in the WTC were valid targets individually responsible for the alleged suffering in the third world. He offers no specific examples of individuals and their crimes, nor any indication that Al Qaeda targeted them as individuals. Instead, he broadly claims that as a group they were "Little Eichmanns." It is quite clear from Osama Bin Laden's own comments that it was the buildings that were targeted, not the people. The people were killed to hurt the US as a whole, not the individual victims specifically. Churchill is demonstrably wrong in this claim.

Can A Target Be Valid Without a Valid Cause

Before we can get to whether the individuals were even valid collateral, we have to determine if the WTC was a valid economic target for the islamists to attack. A valid target requires a valid war, which requires a valid cause, and I don't agree that the Islamists have a valid cause. The argument has to start there before you can discuss whether attacking our economy is a valid target. Churchill attempts to defend the complaints that he says caused the attacks, but he is again misguided and wrong in his vilification of the West, and America. But even if you assume that the Islamists have valid complaints for which to start a war, you have to also accept their solution, which is destruction of the United States and the West, and worldwide fundamentalist Islam under Sharia. I don't think that is a valid solution and I don't think that those who currently support Churchill agree that it is a valid solution either (other than Islamists themselves). More importantly, Churchill says he does not support world wide Sharia law (though apparently does support destruction of the US). Without a valid solution, you can't have a valid cause, and therefore no valid war or targets.

Churchill's Opinion Fails to Make Sense Logically, and Therefore Can Have Consequences

To support the attack, Churchill must support the whole cause. The cause can not be separated from the proposed solution. Churchill's opinion fails to meet any minimal academic standards by not reconciling this issue. Is this an opinion that the People of Colorado should have to pay for, when he is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with the leader of the cause he supports?

I think Churchill's arguments supporting the Islamist cause are inconsistent and as poor as his direct attacks on the victims of 9/11 (since he does not support the whole solution offered by the Islamists), and further indication of his poor scholarship and reason for dismissal. This is not restriction of speech, because he is still able to speak, just not paid by the taxpayer to perform poor scholarship. Let him get a blogger site like the rest of us if he wants to prattle on.