A Story that Sucks from All Angles

I've recently become aware of the controversy swirling around this University of Colorado prof who made some insensitive remarks about the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. Like most controversies involving the world of higher education, the situation is a hornet's nest of ego, academic freedom and all-out bullshit.

In an essay written shortly after the event, Ward Churchill proclaimed many of the victims were not innocents, but rather "a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire." As you might imagine, that touched a raw nerve and has led to calls for Churchill's resignation, which has in turn mobilized an equally strident band of supporters.

I don't know enough about this situation to make any over-arching pronouncements. But I do know a few things about this whole "story" that piss me off.

In none of the stories I've seen has it been made clear why this marginal critic's marginal comments have exploded to the forefront 3 years after the fact. But I would bet my left nut that it began with some small group of right-wingers. These roving clans of outrage are all over the place of late, with one group alone accounting for 99% of the supposed rise in indecency complaints to the FCC in the last few years. I understand there's no statute of limitations on this type of debate, and Ward isn't in any hurry to recant his statements, but I still think the question of "why now?" is an important one.

So the scent of right-wing collusion pushes me toward sympathizing with Mr. Churchill, but then I read his actual essay, pretentiously titled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." It's your run of the mill U.S. foreign policy spawned middle eastern terrorism sort of thing. It's a premise I find merit in on a broad level, but he looses me when he seems to suggest that the Iraqi deaths caused by American sanctions are more morally reprehensible than those caused by flying a commercial airplane into a large building.

But my biggest gripe with Ward Churchill came when I saw footage of him at some kind of rally at CU, because the guy is a complete tool. He stands at a podium and barks his martyr's rhetoric while his minions practically salute and goose-step. He's fighting to hold back this shit-eating grin, and it's clear he's getting off on the personal glory and not the power of ideas or whatever.

I'm an absolute supporter of academic freedom, but this story doesn't really seem to have much to do with that. In a struggle between an ego maniac and right wing alarmists, how does one pick a winner?