I just got home after spending a good six hours on the road while taking my granddaughter to Manchester, New Hampshire to catch a plane back home to St. Petersburg, Florida. When an 8-year old sleeps most of the way down and your alone on the return trip, you have ample time to think and collect thoughts. If any of you are like me, you dispense with any music on the radio in search of news or talk radio. I did just that.
Most of you probably have already heard that Ward Churchill, the very outspoken and controversial college professor at the University of Colorado was fired.
According to reports, Churchill was fired because of plagiarism and some other sorts of “misrepresentations”, whatever that means. Most people would have assumed that he got fired because of some of the bizarre and extreme comments he has made over the years. The one that comes to mind is his comments calling some of those killed in the World Trade Center on September 11th, little Nazis, implying they got what they deserved because they worked for capitalists.
I was listening to Bill O’Reilly on talk radio first. He was ranting on about Churchill. In part of his discussions, he talked with a lawyer representing the ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) out of Colorado who is planning to sue the state of Colorado for infringing on Churchill’s First Amendment Rights.
The discussion began when O’Reilly asked the lawyer, and I apologize for not getting his name down, about why the ACLU didn’t run to support the President of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, when he stated in public that maybe women weren’t as good in science and mathematics as men (not a direct quote).
A reminder for clarity, Churchill was not fired by what he said but more of what he did. O’Reilly’s issue is that the ACLU would not support Summers firing for free speech but is planning to with Churchill’s. Why?
According to this ACLU lawyer, the reason is because Harvard University is a private college and the University of Colorado, where Churchill works, is a public institution paid for in part by tax dollars. For that reason, the lawyer said that Harvard University is exempt from protecting anyone’s First Amendment rights.
I understand what the lawyer was saying and I am sure that another lawyer, perhaps not so entrenched into the purists perspective of free speech, would rebut that argument. Even though I understand, I am troubled by it in that he claims that a person working for a private business has no protection under the First Amendment. It may not be that well defined but it sure sounded like it.
The issue with Ward Churchill isn’t as much about freedom of expression as it is with college tenure. Once a professor obtains tenure, it is very difficult to fire them under any circumstances and Churchill may have plenty of grounds to stand on in his defense.
Fast forward a couple of hours to the Mike Gallagher Show. Mike also discussed the firing of Ward Churchill but his take on the issue was somewhat different than that of Bill O’Reilly’s.
Gallagher talked with Ward Churchill’s attorney, David Lane (who may have been the same lawyer that O’Reilly talked to), by telephone about the incident. Lane said the same thing as the other ACLU attorney that in Summer’s case, he has no protection under the First Amendment because Harvard University is a privately run business.
Living in a supposed democracy, laws are made and challenged every day. This is how they evolve and are tested under public scrutiny. I believe in obeying our laws and testing them in our court system. I also believe in working to change and modify such laws but to do that people need to understand the laws that we are currently living by in order to fairly know whether we need some change.
Having only heard one side of this argument, I would be remiss to state that the law is that Churchill has protection and Summers doesn’t. Let’s assume for a moment that Churchill’s lawyer, Mr. Lane, is correct, along with the ACLU lawyer Bill O’Reilly talked with. This better explains what happened to our friend Jim Zumbo when he got fired from Outdoor Life.
When Jim Zumbo got fired, many spoke out in protest that his firing was unconstitutional based on his right to free speech. I was one of those that said that even though Jim Zumbo has the right to say what’s on his mind, he doesn’t necessarily under the identity of Outdoor Life.
I’m not a lawyer and probably didn’t word my position in a legal manner. If Zumbo doesn’t have protection of the First Amendment because he was employed by a private business, then Outdoor Life was justified, legally, in terminating his employment. I can only assume that Mr. Zumbo was under legal council during this entire fiasco.
If all of this proves to be the case once tested in the courts, then we have to ask ourselves if we should have to give up our First Amendment rights under certain circumstances, like while working for a private entity? If so, is it a black and white relinquishing of First Amendment or other rights? Is there more rights under certain circumstances than others? Some believe that to be the case.
Tom Remington
