Let me make another point here, especially as someone who believes in freedom of speech.
There have been a few I've talked to from CU by phone who say they were appalled by what he said, but added, "but what are you going to do, he's entitled to freedom of speech."
You see, I believe Bill Owens hit it right home in what the real problem here is:
"Ward Churchill has made a lifestyle of saying he was misunderstood and it was taken out of context."
There's many who also already believe he was never a Comanche indian and lied about that, puzzled in how he climbed up the ranks of the academic department so quickly, and plagiarized art and writing.
The only conclusion I can come to is, Who is this guy?
I can't possibly defend Churchill here. I believe he has a terrible case of malignant egophrenia and the only conclusion I can come to about his constant controversy-making is he does it just to get national exposure, not start an intellectual discussion. He's abusing free speech just to get on so many people's nerves.
And it's a bunch of bull that Churchill is presenting himself as a poster child of free speech, yada yada yada too. He believes his fragging remarks fall within First Amendment rights, yet he doesn't care at all about freedom of speech.
Look, for example, I am no fan whatsoever of Columbus Day. In fact, I absolutely resent that holiday and find it to be degrading. But I also believe those marching for that holiday have the right to do so. And guess who tried to deny them their First Amendment rights before? Ward Churchill!
With that said, Churchill is clearly not making these sorts of outrageous statements either because he believes in freedom of speech to its fullest, nor that he wants to start an intellectual discussion. It's out of nothing but his selfish ways, and to many, he's already a cold-hearted spectacle.
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"