disingenuous controversy

8/8/2019 Disingenuous Controversy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/disingenuous-controversy 1/17

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY42 (Spring 2006): 190-205

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY: RESPONSESTO WARD CHURCHILL'S 9/11 ESSAY

by Jo h n Fritch, Cath erine H elen Palczewski, Jenn ifer Farrell, andEric Short

Th e response to Ward Churchill's essay, " 'Some People Push Back': On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,"

is used to explore disingenuous controversy, that is, controversy that closes off, rather than expands, argumen-

tative space. An interesting mix of public argument about U.S. foreign policy, the national grieving process, and

negotiation over collective memory positioned Churchill's essay as a location through which to assert disciplinary

power over what is (not) considered an acceptable statement about 9/11. The time was ripe for pseudo-

controversy as a means of stifling genuine controversy. K e y w o r d s : controversy, dis ingenuous con-

troversy. Ward Churchill, 9/11, collective m emory, ripeness

At the end of Jan uar y 2005, controversy' erupted co ncerning an o nline essay that

University of Colorado Ethnic Studies Professor, Ward Churchill, authored on September

11, 200 1, entided " 'Some People Push Back': On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." In this

essay, Churchill argues that U.S. foreign policy created the conditions of resentment that

made the 9/11 attacks a reasonable response to U.S. imperial policy. Given a history of

intervention into other countries, including the 1991 bombing of Iraq's infrastructure, and

U.S.-imposed sanctions (which he labeled a genocide), Churchill (2001) muses that theattackers' response was proportional. Their four assaults with explosives represented "about

1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the

[first] Gulf War" ("On Matters of Proportion and Intent" section, H 1). The attacks, according

to Churchill, simply gave Americans "a tiny dose of their own medicine" ("On Matters of

Proportion and Intent" section, ^ 3).

Although his essay contained numerous arguments, the segment that triggered intense

reaction appears about one third of the way through, in which Churchill questions the claim

that the attackers targeted "innocent civilians." Churchill argues that, according to U.S.

targeting strategy, the W orld T rad e Cen ter was not a civilian target but, instead, was filled

with people who "formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial

empire-the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has

always been enslaved" ("They did not license themselves to 'target innocent civilians'"

section, ^1). Churchill labels those who were killed on 9/11 "little Eichmanns inhabiting the

John F ritch and Catherine Helen PalcKfwski, Department of Communication Studies, University of Northern Iowa Jennifer

Farrell, New Student Programs, Iowa State University; Eric Short, Department of Communication Studies and Theatre Art

Concordia College (Minnesota). The essay was presented in an eariier form at the U * B iennial Conference on'ArgumentaUon, Alta, Utah, August, 2005, and at the NaUonal Com municaUon AssociaUon conference, San Anton io,Texas, November, 2006, where it received "Top Paper" honors from the ArgumentaUon and Forensics Division. Theauthors would like to thank Randall Lake and the reviewers for their helpful criUcisms. Corre spond ence concern ingthis arUcle should be addressed to Jo hn Fritch, Departm ent of Comm unicaUon Studies, Universitv of Northern IowaCedar Falls, Iowa .50614-0139. E-mail: [email protected]



191

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY FRITCH ET AL

sterile sanctuary of the twin towers" ("They did not license themselves to 'target innocent

civilians'" section, H 1).When this essay appeared online on September 12, the response was minimal (e.g.,

Hemingway, 2001). Churchill was scheduled to speak in late November 2001, at rallies in

Burlington and the University of Vermont, as part of protests against the bombing of

Afghanistan, when a reporter discovered the essay. Many protest organizers indicated that

they wanted to revoke his invitation to speak, although none did; one group withdrew its

sponsorship of a rally, however, rather than be associated with Churchill. Little or no

discussion followed this lone incident, and Churchill continued to lecture around the

country.

The n, on Jan uar y 26, 2005, mo re than 40 mon ths after the essay was published, bloggers

learned that Churchill would appear on a panel entitled "Limits of Dissent?" on February 3

at Hamilton College, a liberal arts college in central New York State. His "Roosting

Chickens" essay was (re)discovered and became the focus of nationwide attention. On

Friday, Jan uar y 28, the top story on Fox's The O'ReillyFactor iocused on Churchill's essay and

his scheduled appearance at Hamilton (O'Reilly, 2005a). The controversy expanded with

additional regional, national and international news coverage. Stories appeared in The Denver

Post (Harsanyi, 2005; M erritt & Pankratz, 2005), The New York Times (York, 2005), the Rocky

Mountain News (Ensslin, 2005), and continued on The O'Reilly Factor (O'Reilly, 2005b, 2005c,

2005d, 2005e, 2005f, 2005g, 2005h, 2005i, 2005j). On February 1, Hamilton College

Pre side ntJ. H . Stewart (2005) canceled the pane l, citing "[c]redible threats of violenc e" as thereason. Two days later, the Colorado Board of Regents convened in special session and

ordered a 30-day University of Colorado-Boulder internal review to determine whether

"Professor Churchill's conduct, including his speech, provide any grounds for dismissal for

cause," assuming such a dismissal would not infringe on his First Amendment rights

(DiStefano, 2005, ^ 11). Later, this review was extended to examine charges of research

misconduct.^

Media coverage did not end. Bill O'Reilly devoted ten segments to Churchill between

January 28 and March 3, his final March 3 "Talking Points Memo" declaring: "Professor

Ward Churchill is a traitor" (2005j). Between February 2 and February 20, more than 25

editorials appeared in newspapers across the country (Hamilton College, 2005). On Febru-ary 4, CNN's Paula Zahn Now interviewed Churchill and Hamilton President Stewart

(Nelson, 2005). On February 24, The Daily Show devoted a segment to Churchill (Karlin &

Stewart, 2005). On March 4, Real Time with Bill Maher featured Churchill and Michael

Faughnan,^ whose brother had died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and who wrote an

open letter (Faughnan, 2005) to Churchill responding to the "Roosting Chickens" essay

(Maher, Crey, Gurvitz, Carter, & Griffiths, 2005). Even South Park joined the fray with

'̂ The academ ic investigation of Churchill is not our primary focus. Nonetheless, particularly because the "RoostingChickens" controversy helped sparked an external review of UC-Boulder's tenure process (Fogg, 2006), it is aninteresting window into the closely related topic of the ways that universities cope with controversy. T he Chan cellor's

preliminary investigation concluded that, although "Professor Churchill has outraged the Colorado and nationalcommunities as a result of profoundly offensive, abusive, and misguided statements relating to the victims of thehorrific 9/11 terrorist attacks on America," his First Amendment rights protected him from university censure



192

DISINGENUOU S CONTRO VERSY SPRING 2006

references to the Eichmann com me nt (Parker & Stone, 2005), which som e viewers praised,

declaring "South Park Bitch Slaps Ward Churchill" (Shackelford, 2005).Given that Churchill's essay appeared the day after 9/11 , why did the controversy em erge

more than three years later? What suddenly made Churchill's essay a focal point at that

particular time? Several commentators had made similar arguments (e.g., Chomsky, 2001;

Johnson, 2004; Roy, 2004; Zizek, 2002), yet Churchill received the most vociferous reaction.

Our interest here is not primarily in what Churchill wrote but, instead, in the response to

Churchill's essay. Specifically, we are interested in why the controversy erupted at the time

that it did.

Even as this article goes to press, fallout from the controversy continues. However, we

focus on the two months from Jan uar y 26 to March 26, 2005, because the controversy during

this time focused on Churchill's 9/11 essay. Although ongoing batUes over Churchill's

scholarship were triggered by the controversy over his 9/11 essay, the internal mechanics of

university review processes is beyond the scope of this essay. Regardless, it is important to

understand the origin of the batdes.

Exploring the origin of the controversy over Churchill's essay enables an inquiry into the

conditions and timing of an emergent controversy. Analysis of Churchill's argument, how

the controversy emerged, and how it proceeded, allows us to explore both the conditions

that contribute to the ripeness of a controversy and the possibility of disingenuous contro-

versy that closes off, rather than expands, argumentative space. We posit that an interesting

mix of public argument about U.S. foreign policy, the national grieving process, andnegotiation over collective memory defined Churchill's essay as a location through which to

assert disciplinary power over what is (not) considered an acceptable statement about 9/11.

After reviewing controversy theory, we explore the timing and intensity of the reaction to

Churchill and his essay. Analogizing from legal and agricultural conceptions of ripeness, we

argue that the time was ripe for disingenuous controversy, an appearance of controversy that

stifled genuine controversy.

T H E D A R K SIDE OF CONTROVERSY

Within argumentation studies, it now is widely accepted that consensus is not necessarilythe only desirable outcome of disagreement (Olson & Goodnight, 1994; West, 1996; Willard,

1996). Dissensus, as much as consensus, has value. In fact, when belief systems are so

calcified that critical engagem ent seem s unlikely, controversy beco me s a necessary m eans of

creating the conditions for argument to proceed.

In his Alta Argum entation Conference keynote, G. Thom as G oodn ight (1991) celebrated

controv ersy because it "pushes the limits of the available me ans of com mu nication [and]

becomes generative of new, unorthodox communication strategies and subversive of estab-

lished ones" as it "expands cultural, social, historical, and intellectual arguments" (p. 2). In

Goodnight's conception, "controversy is a site where the taken-for-granted relationships

between communication and reasoning are open to change, reevaluation, and developmentby argumentative engagement" (p. 5). Controversy, then, is not a sign of a sick society or a



193


capi ta l i s t socie ty . Olson and Goodnight (1994) contend: "Socia l cont roversy chal lenges the

parameters of publ ic d i scuss ion by extending argumenta t ive engagements to the less con-

sensual ly-based cul tura l and socia l regions of oppos i t ional argument . Opposi t ional argu-

me nts w ork outs ide an d ag ains t t radi t ional prac t ices of inf luence" (p . 250) . Th e pu rpo se of

opposi t ional argument is not necessari ly to persuade (or f ind bases of ident if icat ion) but to

render evident and sus ta in chal lenges to "communicat ion pract ices tha t de l imi t the proper

express ion of opin ion an d cons t ra in the legi t imate format ion of jud gm en t wi thin pe rson al

an d pu blic sp he res" (p. 250).* Ce ntra l to their analysis is a consid erat io n of the w ay

opposi t ional argument funct ions in both i t s d i scurs ive and nondiscurs ive forms.

Cla ims are refuted a nd nor m s of par t ic ipat ion di sputed thro ugh discurs ive argum ent . T he

move to c lose of f these di scurs ive chal lenges of ten channels communicat ion in to nondiscur -s ive argument tha t can "usher in to the publ ic rea lm aspects of l i fe tha t are h idden away,

habi tual ly ignored, or rout inely di sconnected f rom publ ic appearance" (Olson & Goodnight ,

1994, p . 252) . W he n de p loyed b y t hose wh o seek t o engend er con t rove r sy , nond i scur s ive

argu me nts can "redef ine an d rea l ign the boun dar ies of pr ivate and p ubl ic spac e" (p . 252) .

We would caut ion agains t Olson and Goodnight ' s formulat ion of the di scurs ive and

nondiscurs ive as possess ing two dis t inc t funct ions . Given that they recognize the per forma-

t ive role of the discursive argumentat ive object ion, i t also is important to note that opposi-

t ional argument a lways a l ready entwines both di scurs ive and nondiscurs ive forms and,

hence, funct ions (Palczewski , 2002). Randal l Lake (1990) notes that personae i n a r g u m e n t

invi te assent a t both the di scurs ive and nondiscurs ive levels because "arguments seek assent

no t only to the claim stated bu t also to the claim en ac ted " (p. 83) . Th us , w he n assessing forms

and funct ions , Olson and Goodnight ' s c lean di s t inc t ions may obscure the ways in which

discurs ive and nondiscurs ive arguments may in tersect and s toke fa l se cont roversy.

At tent ion to th i s in tersect ion i s impor tant because those seeking to expand the product ive

l imi t s of argument are not the only ones who may cal l on the nondiscurs ive 's in tersect ion

wi th the di scurs ive . The nondiscurs ive can be col lapsed a lmost complete ly in to the per for -

mat ive e lement of the di scurs ive , as appears to be the case wi th Churchi l l , where the arguer

bec om es as m uc h an issue as the argum ent . Al thou gh en actm ent of ten i s used for p rod uct iv e

en ds (Palczew ski , 2002 ), in this case it seem s to be u sed to close off co nsid erat io n of the claim

advanced. ChurchiU 's oppos i t ional argument occurs a lmost exclus ively in the di scurs ive

realm, in the form of an onl ine essay (perhaps the most d i sembodied form of d i scourse

avai lable) . However, those cr i t ical of his discursive claim have focused at tent ion on the

nondiscurs ive c la im that he enacts . Fl ipping Lake 's t e rms, d i ssenters f rom Churchi l l ' s c la ims

object by dissent ing from Churchi l l . They focus not on his (discursive) arguments but on

(nondiscurs ive) h im.

A complete unders tanding of the dynamics of cont roversy requi res a t tent ion both to

cont roversy 's genuine abihty to expand discurs ive space and to i ts ar t i f icial deployment so as

to diver t a t tent ion f rom the c la ims advanced. This i s especia l ly the case because even

•"The relationship between oppositional argument and oppositional consciousness, which Mansbridge (2001)



194

DISINGENUO US CONTROV ERSY SPRING 2006

Goodnight's critics take controversy to be an unconditionally positive occurrence. For

example, Kendall Phillips (1999) describes controversies as moments where

nodal points of fixed meaning are destabilized by alternative, antagonistic articulations. These antagonismsreveal the limitations of existing formations of discourse and create a space where alternative discursive andmaterial systems may be proposed. .. . [CJontroversial articulations serve to dislocate or disorient dominantsystems of discourse, (p. 494)

Ou t of these m om ents of disorientation, Phillips believes, new subject positions arise, leading

Goodnight (1999) to criticize Phillips for assuming that all controversies "function in a similar

manner" (p. 513). We agree with Goodnight: Not all controversies are alike.

The Churchill controversy demonstrates that not all controversies function similarly. AsGoodnight (1999) argues, "controversy cannot be valorized as resistance leading to change

causing reform" becau se "controv ersy can b e contrived in the interest of indefinite repetition

of activities bulwarking the clandestine growth of private power" (p. 520). Goodnight strives

to theorize "genuine controversy" (p. 520), which could be opposed to false controversy,

which h e previously described as "the confections of mass media" (Goo dnight, 1991, p. 7).

As he n otes wryly, "public discourse is not always every thing it claims to be ," in par t bec ause

"any of the controversies that now receive critical [and media] attention are those served up

by the contem por ary m ass-media's version of 'pub licity'" (Goodnight, 1991, p. 7). Perhap s

for this reason, Ono and Sloop (1999) correctly note, "Publics that may sometimes function

as counter-publics rarely get adequate air time to be understood or evaluated" (p. 536).Instead of air time being devoted to genuine controversies, mass media tend to focus on

those tasty (though neither healthy nor filling) confections that are consumed more mind-

lessly, making controversy less about the claims advanced than the personalities and tastes

displayed.

Although Churchill's essay could be read as testing taken-for-granted relationships be-

tween communication and reasoning, responses to the essay fomented a controversy

wherein dominant systems of discourse were reoriented, not disoriented. The responses

ignore Churchill's explanation for 9/11 and concentrate instead on his phrase, "little

Eichmanns." The controversy became: Should Churchill have said what he said in the way

he said it? Like other instances in which the parameters of public discussion are reinforcedrather than red raw n,' this case demonstrates that disingenuous controversy can be deployed

to close off oppositional arguments.

REACTIONS TO CHURCHILL'S 9/11 ESSAY

Writing in response to 9/11, Churchill's 19-page essay attempts to explain the actions of

the hijackers. Structured in a prob lem /cause /solutio n format, the essay outlines the effects of

U.S. policy in the Muslim world, condemns American complacency about this policy's

"Churchill's case was not unique: Two other tasty media confections were served up as poison apples to those w howould challenge the Bush administration's construal of the 9/11 attacks. The first was an exchange involving



195

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY ' FRITCH ET AL

devastating effects, argues that the hijackers' actions were reasonable given this policy, and

calls for a changed U.S. foreign policy.

The essay begins by exploring the effects on the people of Iraq of the first Gulf War and

the sanctions that followed, comparing the U.S. actions in Iraq to the actions of Nazi

Germany during World War IL Churchill claims that the hijackers' actions can be under-

stood as a reaction to the despair caused by U.S. military actions and U.N. sanctions, even

though U .S. losses on Se ptem ber 11 were far from pr opo rtional to the U.S.-caused devas-

tation in Iraq. Churchill quotes former U.N. officials who declared U.S. actions a "dehberate

genocide" (Introduction section, H 13).

After describing the extent of the devastation experienced by the Iraqi people, Churchill

turns to the American public's reaction to that devastation. He contends that the American

people were largely silent about the loss of Iraqi hves. Even those who protested the war

wen t no further than "waving signs" ("The Politics of a Perp etrator Pop ulation" section, \\ 4).

Chu rchill next ex amine s the hijackers' actions, claiming that they did no t "initiate" the war

but were retaliating for U.S. aggression in Iraq ("Meet the 'Terrorists'" section, ^ 2). He also

argues that American civilian casualties were no greater than those resulting from the

sanctions impo sed on Iraq and the collateral casualties of the first Iraq w ar. Chu rchill asserts

that the hijackers were neither cowards nor Islamic fundamentahsts, nor were they insane.

Given the costs of U.S. imperial policy to both the United States and the Muslim world,

Churchill outlines two possible responses to the events of 9/11 : continuing the status quo or

change. In an eerily prescient prediction, Churchill posits that U.S. policies will be more ofthe same, including a new round of conflict in Iraq and limitations on U.S. citizens' rights.

He concludes by proposing an alternative, a "humanitarian strategy" based on the conviction

that, once the U.S. stops killing Iraqi children, retaliation will cease.

Parts of Churchill's essay are simply inflammatory. Even so, it also contains many

arguments that invite dispute. This does not mean, however, that its arguments present a

trenchant, unique, or elegant critique of U.S. foreign policy. Gayatri Spivak (2004) argues

that "statements describing US policy, coming out promptly in response to every crisis ... is

undoubtedly worthy, often requiring personal courage, but it is not a response" (p. 87).

Reflecting on 9/11, she elaborates:

This act of global confrontation . .. cannot be condoned as a legitimate result of bad US policy abroad, as inthe usual US-centered political analyses. Such a gesture matches the m edia overkill to "m ourn" the dead withevery possible sentimentality and thus attempt to contain the sublimity of Ground Zero. (p. 95)

In many ways, Churchill commits this error, legitimating the attack as the reasonable

outcome of U.S. foreign policy and repositioning the United States at the center of analysis.

Nonetheless, his essay contains some well-reasoned arguments and some of his predictions

have come to pass. More importantly, the essay warrants attention because of the reaction

it provo ked. For over three years, the essay went unnoticed. T hen, suddenly, a firestorm of

criticism erupted.

Why the Intense Reaction?



196

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY SPRING 2006

2005; Merritt & Pankratz, 2005; M orson, 2005 ; O'Reilly, 2005h ; Worthington , 20 05; York,

2005). When not quoting direcdy, stories reported that Churchill likened those in the Twin

Towers to a "notorious Nazi" (Elliott, 2005; Tankersley, 2005) and "a Nazi war criminal"

(Pimentel, 2005). This com parison, critics alleged, mean t that Church ill was "demo nizing the

victims of Sept. 11" (Curtin, Pankratz, & Ka ne, 2005). Talk show ho st and New sM ax.com

contributor, Barry Farber (2005), even ignored Churchill's use of the adjective little, con-

struing Churchill as saying that "the victims of 9/11 deserved what they got because they

were like Nazis. An d no t just litde Nazis, but Nazi exterm inator s" (^ 2). Co ntrove rsy formed

around an inflammatory insult rather than around Churchill's perfectly serious argument.

We do not dispute diat the "little Eichmanns" phrase is incendiary. We focus on the

responses to this phrasenot

because the phrase conveys a serious argument that representsthe whole of Churchill's essay, but because commentators construed it as representative.

Attention to the phrase's many interpretations becomes important because its meaning and

significance became central not to the essay, but to the controversy. Preoccupation with the

phrase helps explain why Churchill 's genuine arguments, about U.S. imperialism or the

seemingly rational responses of the hijackers, were accorded such little attention.

Post-hoc justifications. Com men tators con standy challenged Churchill to justify the phrase,

not the substance of his argument. In defense, Churchill explained that the "litde Eich-

manns" comment was grounded in Hannah Arendt's (1963/1994) thesis on the banality of

evil. Only twice did the media even repo rt this explanation (Maher et al., 200 5; York, 2005).

The dynamics of these instances are instructive: They reveal that the intense reaction toChurchill's comparison is grounded in a collective memory of Adolf Eichmann that forgets

Eichmann's actual role in the Holocaust.

Bill Maher invited both Churchill and Michael Faughnan onto his March 4th show.

Faughnan contested Churchill 's comparison: "Eichmann was an evil man, an evildoer. My

brother was not anything that would even remotely resemble evil" (as quoted in Maher et al.,

2005). Maher, in turn, picked up on another part of the essay, in which Churchill had

con dem ned the technocrac y's refusal to see the evil of U.S. foreign policy because they were

"too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones" ("They did not

license themselves to 'target innocent civilians'" section, ^ 1), to make a similar point.

Contrasting one who hits another over the head with a shovel with one who is oblivious to

the act because s/he is on a cell pho ne, M aher rem em bered Eichman n as the murd erer who

actively kills by wielding the weapon; those in the World Trade Center, in contrast, at worst

were simply oblivious to the killing. Forgotten was the person who enables or facilitates

atrocities executed by others. Churchill responded to Maher, explaining that he was refer-

ring to Arendt's analysis of the banality of Eichmann's evil, and that Eichmann never hit

anyone over the head with a shovel, either.

This exchange illustrates how Eichmann is remembered as an active, direct participant in

the murderous genocide of the Holocaust. Even though Eichmann was the chief logistical

officer of Nazi Germany and never personally murdered anyone, his widely televised trialbrought the evils of the Holocaust to the world's attention, and fixed him in collective



197


underlay the outrage at Churchill's comparison. This slippage, however, also is precisely the

basis upon which Churchifl defended his comparison.Controvert as diversion. Critics' interpretation of the Eichmann comparison diverted atten-

tion from ChurchiU's criticisms of U.S. foreign policy at the same time that it inoculated the

public against other possible, oppositional understandings of 9/11. Churchill (2005) himself

noted "the diversion, to one phrase ou t of one sentence out of one twenty pag e essay . . . that

one litde phrase" (n.p.). In turn, because his was the only oppositional understanding to be

pubhcized widely, all criticism of the dominant understanding of 9/11 was reduced met-

onymically to Churchill's essay. Because the phrase came to stand for the essay as a whole,

which in turn came to stand for opposition per se, it became possible to condemn all

oppositional understandings by condemning the phrase. Churchill 's interpretation of 9/11

differs radically from that of the administration, enabling us to consider when, and underwhat conditions, alternative interpretations are permitted.

Preoccupied with the Eichmann analogy, critics overlooked Churchill's critique of U.S.

policy and his attempt to understand the hijackers, instead attacking his character. Respon-

dents shifted their refutation from the discursive to the nondiscursive; functionally, they

argued that Churchill's argument should be rejected because Churchill should be rejected.

Outrage against the Eichmann analogy was deployed as a way to marginalize Churchifl, who

was "so over the top and so h at ef ul .. . He's an Am erican hater" (O'Reilly, 2005b). O'Reilly

repeatedly called Churchifl a "radical" (2005c, 2005f, 2005g), and others called him an

"Am erica-hating activist [with a] . . . widesp read con tem pt for freedom " (Harsanyi, 2005).

Eventually, Churchill's personality was targeted (Curtin et al., 2005). O'Reilly called him

"vile" (2005h), Pataki cafled him a "bigoted terrorist supp orter" (quoted in Elliott, 2005), and

a letter-to-the-editor labeled him "a sick puppy in dire need of a distemper shot" (Storatz,

2005). Some suggested that Churchill had a violent streak (Curtin et al., 2005; Kane, 2005).

Others charged that he had plagiarized and misrepresented other scholars (O'Reilly, 2005i);

one described his scholarship as "meager, even by the lax standards of his field" (Gurwitz,

2005). Churchill, it was often suggested, should be removed from his university position

because he had "polluted" (John Gibson on O'Reifly, 2005d) the minds of "impressionable

students" (Harsanyi, 2005) and "his treasono us hate speech [had] . . . contaminat[ed] you ng

students' minds" (Jeffs, 2005).

Interestingly, even as commentators questioned Churchifl's Indian-ness, they happily

deployed the stereotype of the dirty, treacherous savage used against indigenous peoples

throughout American history. Churchifl was: a less-than-human animal (in need of a shot);

violent; a thief (of others' scholarship); a liar; and dirty (polluting students' minds). In fact,

a critic who thought that Churchifl had called the 9/11 victims "exterminators" concluded

that "insect pow der" w as the appro priate respon se (Farber, 2005 , H 24). Such a reaction

eerily recafls Colonel Jo h n C hiving ton's infamous ord er to com me nce the 1864 massacre at

Sand Creek , Co lorad o: "Kill and scalp all, big and litde; nits ma ke lice" [People & events, 2003,

Massacre at Sand Creek, H 1). Churchfll-the insect, the animal, the liar, and the thief-

became the argument to which one would assent, or not.Not only did Churchill-the-man become the argument, but even his discursive claims were



198

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY SPRING 2006

standing" (Smith, 2005). Even tbe Cbancellor of the University of Colorado described the

essay as "profoundly offensive, abusive, and misguided" (Report, 2005, Summary of theChancellor's review and decisions, H I ) . The m erits of the essay's arguments w ere never

engaged. By misdirecting attention to the arguer instead of the argument, a disingenuous

controversy was stoked. Tbe veracity of Churchill's essay may be open to question, but

reactions to it did not encourage genuine discussion of U.S. policy.

Even comparatively measured responses focused primarily on Churchill and only sec-

ondarily on his message. Michael Faugbnan alone seemed willing to engage Churchill on the

merits. In an open letter, he acknowledged that Cburcbill's essay possessed a nobler purpose:

"the desire to tell the American people that we must be aware of ourselves in the world, take

responsibility and work to understand and change the wrongs tbat have been committed"

(Faugbnan, 200 5, H 8). No netheless, Ch urchill's description of those who died on 9/1 1 as

technocrats d ehumanized them by reducing them to "m ere symbols" (H 3). Thu s, Faughnan

argued, Churchill "disgracefully use[d] the victims of 9/11 to advance you r ow n cau se" (H 9).

In fact, Faughnan observed that coverage had "moved away from the message you are trying

to convey, to attacks on your pedigree, your integrity, your scholarship and your right to

speak" (H 10). Faug hnan , who se insight into the controversy was unusually nua nced ,

understood more clearly than most that Churchill had provoked such vehement reactions

because "he has stepped on sacred grou nd with us" (on O 'Reilly, 2005h). Next, we exam ine

this move to the sacred in the memorialization of 9/11.

Why Now?

Timing played a crucial role in the controversy over Churchill's 9/11 essay. Our discipline

and its Sophistic tradition highlight the importance of kairos, saying the right words at the

right time. In this case, we are interested in the conditions that make the time ripe for the

wrong words to gamer attention.

Ripeness as a condition of time has been explored in other fields, metaphorically (in law)

and literally (in agriculture). Ripeness is a critical determinant of the appropriate time to act

(for example, to hear a case or pick a fruit). We extend this concept to the ripeness of

controversy, particularly because ripeness draws attention to the interaction of multiplefactors that are affected by time.

In law, assessments of ripeness require the evaluation of "both the fitness of the issues for

judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration" {Abbott

Laboratories v. Gardner, 1967, p. 149). In Buechner v. Bond (1983), the Court explains:

"Ripeness does not exist when the question rests solely on a probability that an event will

occur" (p. 614). Ripeness requires that the individual has standing to sue, damage has

occurred, and the hardship of delay is certain. Each of these factors possesses a temporal

dimension.

Similarly, agricultural ripeness is affected by time. Produce can be unripe, ripe, overly

ripe, or rotten. Produce ripens through exposure to ethylene and ambient ethylene, whichchange the color of a fruit over time, indicating ripeness. Interestingly, because ambient



199


warran ts public attention. Secon d, just as external factors influence a case's or fruit's ripeness,

the ripeness of a controversy is contingent on surrounding conditions. Third, just as there are

times after which a case or fruit is no longer ripe, controversies may emerge not when they

are ripe, but when they are rotten. Controversy over ChurchiU's essay did not emerge for

more than three years. What conditions changed during this period to ripen (or, possibly,

over-ripen) the controversy?

Ripening factors. Several factors contributed to the Churchill controversy's apparent ripe-

ness: (1) the location of ChurchiU's speak ing en gage me nt; (2) the increasing role of blogs; (3)

declining support for the Iraq War; (4) broader scrutiny of the University of Colorado-

Bou lder; and (5) the grief cycle and its relation to collective m em ory. Thes e factors coalesced

to create conditions under which a formerly unnoticed essay suddenly was thrust into the

spotlight.

First, Hamilton College provided a ripe scene (Smallwood, 2005). Its New York location

and studen ts-particularly Matthew C opp o, whose father, Jose ph, died in the 9/11 attac ks-

turned ChurchiU's prospective oppositional speech into yet another devastating attack on

innocent victims. Coppo agitated to have ChurchiU's invitation revoked: "For him to stand

up and preach that all the September 11 victims deserved it and then to reference them to

Nazis, I don't understand why the school would want to give him that" (quoted in Nelson,

2005). As Co ppo concluded, "It 's a little rem emb rance thing" (quoted in N elson, 2005). Th e

campus furor attracted the national media. The college president and Churchill received

death direats (Nelson, 2005).Second, the emergence of blogging provided a ripening agency (see RodzviUa, 2001). As

was illustrated during the 2004 presidential election, when bloggers first probed the prob-

lematic CBS-Dan Rather memo, blogs increasingly serve as the lower courts to the national

news media's high courts: "Blogs appear to play an increasingly important role as a forum

of public debate, with knock-on consequences for the media and for politics" (Drezner &

Farrell, 2004, p. 4). Bloggers' increasing role as agenda setters clearly inUuenced the

Churchill controversy. Shordy after the Hamilton College story broke in Syracuse's Post

Standard, blogs erupted; within just a few hours, more than 500 comments critical of

Churchill had been posted on litdegreenfootballs.com alone (Smallwood, 2005). Not until

two days later, and only following extensive postings on two conservative weblogs (lit-degreenfootballs.com and Freerepublic.com) did the national media pay any attention.

Third, conservatives attacked Churchill as a way of encouraging support for Bush and the

war in Iraq. Immediately after his re-election, his approval ratings jumped to 53% (Roper,

2001-2004) and Bush declared that he would use his political capital. As 2004 drew to a

close, however, a series of events raised questions about the President's policy in Iraq; by

Inauguration Day, 58% of the public disapproved of Bush's handling of the war ("Inaugu-

ration," 2005). As Bush's approval ratings slipped, conservative agents sought to shift

attention from Iraq by framing criticism as unpatriotic. Churchill's essay provided a foil.

Commentators relied on two primary strategies to bolster sagging support for the Presi-

dent. First, conservatives renewed efforts to frame the war in Iraq as a part of the larger waron terrorism. Linking Iraq to the war on terrorism and, hence, to the events of 9/11,



200

DISINGENUOU S CONTROV ERSY SPRING 2006

commentators equated 9/11 and terrorism with the war in Iraq while simultaneously

painting dissent as unpatriotic.

Fourth, the University of Colorado faced intense scrutiny even prior to the Churchill

controversy. Its football team was investigated for mistreatment of a female player and for

plying recruits with sex and alcohol. Churchill was seen as further evidence of a university

run am ok (O'Reilly, 2005i), in which a liberal professor could make "m oron ic, offensive . . .

comments comparing some Sept. 11 victims to Nazis" (Cohen, 2005). Churchill's position as

a professor at the University of Colorado, a school tainted by scandal, became further

evidence of his (and academe's) failings. The apparent vulnerability of the university's

embattled president encouraged even louder calls for an investigation of Churchill.

Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the 9/11 grief cycle enabled apparent ripeness todevelop. Although the stages of grief follow no set timeline, most agree that one stage fixes

the deceased in survivors' memories (Dunne, 2004). After a period of mourning, the grieving

nation moved collectively to remember the victims of 9/11. Many criticisms of Churchill

concerned the manner in which victims should be remembered and, more precisely, on the

manner in which Churchill 's comments dishonored their memories: Recall Coppo's com-

ment that "It's a little remembrance thing." Americans had arrived at the point in the grief

cycle when it was appropriate to settle the way in which the deceased would be rem em bered .

Th e time was ripe to judg e the acceptability of out-law (Sloop & O no , 1997) rem em bran ces

of 9/11 .

The controversy surrounding Churchill became ripe only as numerous factors coalescedat a unique juncture. Place, time, agents, and agency converged to produce a situation so

overly ripe that it was "rotten with perfection" (Burke, 1966, p. 16).

Complicating ripeness. Ripeness in public discourse is more difficult to gauge than legal or

agricultural ripeness. Legal rules determine when a case is ripe and one can predict when a

fruit will be ripe. A controversy's ripeness, in contrast, is less certain, especially when the

controversy concerns remembrance. Iwona Irwin-Zarecka (1994) explains:

The re is no inevitability of co nf lic t. . . or no easy way to predict that this rather than that me mo ry produc tion

will serve as a s ite for articulation of opposite views. . . . T o say that mem ory disputes happen when som ething

hits a sensitive public nerve m ay be p art of the explana tion; how ever, m ost of the time, we only know this after

the fact. (p. 68)

Although prediction may not be possible, retrospective u nderstand ing of the reasons w hy

they arise helps us assess whether controversies have been productive. Controversies arise

for many reasons. Churchill's essay became controversial because it challenged efforts to

protect a sacred public mem ory. Th e nature of public memo ry m ay explain how controversy

can silence dissent and entrench dominant perspectives rather than "dislocate or disorient

dominant systems of discourse" (Phillips, 1999, p. 494).

Public memory is grounded in the present, not the past, and is (re)made continually to fit

the nee ds of the pub lic it serves. Barry Schwartz (1982) notes: "R ecollection of the pas t is an

active, constructive process, not a simple matter of retrieving information. To remember isto place a part of the past in the service of conceptions and needs of the present" (p. 374).



201


th e traitor label alleges that Churchill is working (presently) against a nation in mourning,

and during wartime.

Understandably, Americans do not wish to see evil in themselves, and certainly not in the

victims of 9/11. They/we resist the very possibility of a (reasoned) account of the tragedy;

perhaps this is why we remember the Twin Towers but conveniently forget the Pentagon.

Sara Ruddick (2003) has remarked: "Since September 11 the danger of mythologizing, even

clinging to, the horrible has been evident" (p. 214). Ruddick finds that "the moral horror of

the attacks emerges m ore clearly in the construction of the victims. Victims of evil are often

identified as of a 'kind' or with their nation states" as they assume a "metaphysical inno-

cence" (pp. 216-217). The victims must remain pure to keep the nation pure; they must

remain innocent to keep the attacks horrible. Controversy emerged after Churchill ques-

tioned w hether the victims and the nation were innocent, and whether the attacks-in relation

to devastation in Iraq-were so horrific.

Further, a robust public memory silences opposition. Evocation of a powerful public

memory nullifies counterarguments that would subvert group goals of cohesion, continuity,

and stability (Zelizer, 1995, p. 228). Churchill was not the only one to voice oppositional

arguments concerning American complacency and responsibility. However, he may have

used the m ost "unortho dox comm unication strategies" (Goodnight, 1991, p. 2). His incen-

diary "little Eichmanns" analogy threatened the metaphysical innocence of the victims and,

thus, the cohesion and stability of the public's memory of 9/11. When the absence of clear

military success in Iraq and Bush's dogged linkage of Iraq to terrorism clouded the meaningof 9/11, the media and public turned on Churchill, condemning the man but silencing his

counterargument.

That Churchill subsequently tried and failed to cloak his counterargument with Arendt's

thesis is significant. The conditions that provoked the spurious controversy about his

name-calling also guaranteed that attempts to rehabilitate his serious arguments would fail.

Ch urchill's inability to reframe the evocative gesture of his "little Eichmanns" phrase created

conditions of backlash that publicized radical views in order to contain them.

CONCLUSION

In this essay, we sought to distinguish disingenuous from genuine controversy by exam-

ining the reaction to Ward Churchill's 9/11 essay. Disingenuous controversies stifle dissent

and re-center an orthodox form of communication. Disingenuous controversy does not

facilitate the open exchange of ideas, even in the face of uncertain outcomes, but, rather,

calcifies beliefs and practices and stifles alternate perspectives.

We are not arguing that Churchill's essay exemplifies genuine controversy. We argue only

that the criticisms q/^this essay (excepting Faughnan's) generated a disingenuous controversy

that foreclosed genuine controversy. Churchill's essay became a lightning rod for efforts to

suppress oppositional interpretations of 9/11 and the Iraq War. Critics of the essay were not

attempting to foster productive argument by isolating Churchill as a polemicist. Indeed,Ward Churchill is known more widely now than before. Obsession with the very specific



202

DISINGENUOUS CONTRO VERSY SPRING 2006

taken-for-granted relationships between communication and reasoning, this tasty media

confection reoriented and fixed the dominant discourse system's control over public mem-

ory.

This confection may well have been rotten. The same ethylene that ripens produce

eventually leads to rot. The Churchill controversy certainly was overripe. His essay had

lingered in obscurity on the internet for more than three years, even though its speculations

about the hijackers' motivations clearly were ripe for discussion in the days and weeks

immediately following 9/11. Eventually, declining support for the war, debates about

universities generally and the University of C olorad o in particular, and th e cycle of grief for

those killed on 9/11 crystallized a disingenuous controversy over Churchill-the-traitor that

refused to engage his serious arguments and silenced criticism of U.S. policy. Thus, althoughcoalescent events created conditions ripe for genuine controversy, this nascent controversy

was overwhelmed by further developments that over-ripened these conditions and sparked

a diversionary, disingenuous controversy.

Arendt's thesis about Eichmann and the banality of evil also sparked controversy, but of

a somewhat different form. Although the tone and appropriateness of her book were

criticized, Stephen Browne (2004) finds, optimistically, that, in this "criticism, in its anima-

tion, seriousness, and public character, can be found a kind of redemption for the ideas

[concerning the function of speech] professed in The Human Condition and the praxis that was

Eichma nn in Jerusalenf (p. 62). Those who disagreed with Arendt disagreed with her ideas,

not just her prose. Thus, Browne believes, Arendt "started an argument" (p. 62, emphasisadded).

In contrast, we believe, the controversy surrounding Churchill sought to end an argument.

Criticism of Churchill lacks a public character, retreating into a politics of personal tragedy

rather than civic accountability. Although his other scholarship is being examined, serious

engagement with the ideas presented in "Roosting Chickens" has yet to occur. Many aspects

of U.S. foreign policy merit sustained debate, and Churchill's essay warranted consideration

within such a genuine controversy. Regrettably, public "discussion" was limited to outrage

at the Eichmann comparison. Even now, public deliberation about 9/11's meaning has not

prospered, particularly in government and the mainstream press.

The reaction to Churchill's essay teaches us that not all controversies are created equal.Although much argumentation scholarship celebrates controversy (and rightly so), we also

should beware its dark side, that is, disingenuous controversy that is stoked not in order to

expand the spaces of argumentative engagement, but to close off disagreement and re-center

dominant memories, reactions, and interpretations. Clues to the presence of disingenuous-

ness may be found in an overripe controversy, a controversy so delayed, so ripe, that it has

begun to stink. Overripe controversy may focus more on an argument's emotional effects

than on its substance, forcefully collapse the discursive and nondiscursive components of

oppositional argument, and refuse to engage in the heavy lifting that is remembering more

than we want to forget.

REFERENCES



203


Browne, S. H. (2004). Arendt, Eichm ann, an d the politics of rem em branc e. In K. Phillips (Ed.), Framingpublic memory

(pp. 45-64). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Buechner v. Bond [Electronic version], 650 S.W.2d 611 (1983). Retriev ed Fe brua ry 13, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis

Academic Universe database.Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Berkeley: University of California Press.Chomsky, N. (2001). 9-77. New York: Open Media.Churchill, W . (2001, September). "Some people push back": On the justice of roosting chickens. Pockets of Resistance, 11 .

Retrieved September 17, 2001, from http://www .darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&c=recent&view= 9&long=lChurchill, W. (2005, February 8). [Speech at University of Colorado-Boulder]. 9News. Boulder: KUSA-TV. Stream-

ing video retrieved Jun e 2 3, 2005, from http://www.9news.com/acm _news.aspx?OSGNA ME= KUSA &IKOBJECTID=f3fcdl91-0abe-421a-01bc-e9a296571dlf&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-aclf-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

Coh en, A. (2005, February 18). The L awrence Sum mers m ess: Harv ard enters the Internet age. Vie New York Times,

p. 18.Curtin, D ., Pankratz, H., & Kane, A. (2005, February 13). Questions stoke W ard C hurchill's firebrand past. The Denver

Post, p. AOI. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www .denverp ost.com /search/ci_00 02709 008

DiStefano, P. (2005, February 3). Rem arks by Chan cellor Phil DiStefano at the CU B oard of Regents special m eeting.Retrieved Jun e 27, 2005, from http://www .colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/49.html

Drezner, D. W., & Farrell, H. (2004, August). The po wer an d politics of blogs. Paper p resented at the m eeting of theAme rican Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved De cem ber 15, 2005, from http://www .utsc.utoron-to.ca/~farrell/blogpaperfinal.pdf

Dunne, K. (2004). Grief and its manifestations. Nursing Standard, 18{i5), 45-51.Elliot, D. (2005, February 19). Academe outraged over 9/11 opinions. ITie Mercury (Australia), n.p. Retrieved March

20 , 2007, from Lexi-Nexis Academic Universe database.Ensslin, J. C. (2005, January 31). 9/11 storm at CU: Regents call special meeting to discuss professor's views. Rocky

Mountain News, p. 4A. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.rockym ountainnew s.com/drm n/news/article/0,1299,DRMN_3_4762558,00.html

Farber, B. (2005, February 14). Ward Churchill's cheap shot for attention. Newsmax. Retrieved June 28, 2005, fromhttp://www.newsmax.eom/archives/articles/2005/2/12/203404.html

Faughnan, M. (2005, February 16). An open letter to Ward Churchill: My brother, the "Eichmann." Retrieved June22 , 2005, from http://www .kersplebede b.com /mystuff/sl l/churchill_faughnan.htm l

Felman, S. (2001). Theate rs of justice: Aren dt inje rusale m, the Eichm ann trial, and the redefinition of legal mea ningin the wake of the Holocaust. Critical Inquiry, 27 , 201-238.

Flynn, K. (2005, February 12). Heritage, writing split Indian activists. Rocky Mountain News, p. 4A. Retrieved March

20 , 2007, from h ttp:/ / www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news/article/0,1299,DRM N_3_4754306,00.htmlFogg, P. (2006, Janu ary 6). All eyes on tenu re: Amid public scrutiny, the U. of Co lorado reviews its process for

awarding the coveted status. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from http://chronicle.com/temp /email.php ?id=239nycyfm8773c868ylmea7zznxzo8u

Goodman, A. (Executive Producer). (2005, February 18). The justice of roosting chickens: Ward Churchill speaks.Democracy Now [Television broadcast]. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.dem ocracynow .orK/articlepl?sid=05/02/18/15721I

Goodnight, G. T. (1991, November). Controversy. In D. W. Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of theSeventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 1-13). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Goodnight, G. T. (1999). Messrs. Dinkins, Rangel, and Savage in colloquy on the African Burial Ground: A com-panion reading. Westem Journal of Communication, 63, 511-525.

Gray, P., & Oliver, K. (2001, February). The memory of catastrophe [Electronic version]. History Today, 5?(2), 9-15 .Retrieved N ovem ber 14, 2001 , from InfoTrac da tabase.Gurwitz, J. (2005, February 16). Academ ics too often rally beh ind the wrong idea . Sa n Antonio Express-News, p. 9B.

Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.Ham ilton C ollege. (2005). Kirkland Project Panel with Wa rd C hurchill: News and information [Web page]. Retrieved

Jun e 27, 2005, from http://www.ham ilton.edu/news/wardchurchill/Han son, E. (2005, February 21). Am erica has "poked the bear" for too long [Letter to the editor]. Rocky Mountain News,

p . 48A. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.Harsanyi, D. (2005, January 31). CU hiding behind tenure. The Denver Post, p. BOl. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from

Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.Hemingway, S. (2001, December 1). Activist's views on attacks will have people buzzing [Electronic version].

Burlington Free Press, n.p. Retrieved Ju ne 22, 2005, from http://www.burlingtonfreepress.comInauguration day; challenges of a second term. (2005,January 21). Star TnAane (Minneapolis, MN), p. 20A. Retrieved

March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.Irwin-Zarecka, I. (1994). Frames of remembrance: The dynamics of collective memory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Jeffs, D. B. (2005, February 15). Coverage of professor's 9/11 essay feeds his ego, terrorism [Letter to the editor]. USAToday, p. lOA. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.

J ohns on , C . (2004) . Blowback: The costs an d consequences of American empire (2nd ed .) . New York : Henr y H ol t .



204

DISINGENUOU S CONTRO VERSY SPRING 2006

Mah er, B., Grey, B., Gurvitz, M., Carter, S., & Griffiths, S. (Executive Producers). (2005, March 4). Real Time with Bill

Maher [Television broadcast]. New York: HBO . Retrieved N ovem ber 8, 2006, from http://www.safesearching.com/billmahe r/print/t_hbo_real time_030405.htm

Mansbridge,J. (2001). The making of oppositional consciousness. InJ. Mansbridge and A. Morris (Eds.), Oppositionalconsciousness (pp. 1-19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Merritt, G., & Pankratz, H. (2005, January 31). Profs essay spurs board session. The Denver Post, p. BOl. RetrievedMarch 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.

Morson , B. (2005, February 18). Forum accord: It's not legislators' concern. Rocky Mountain News, p. 6A. RetrievedMarch 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.

Nelson, M . (Executive Pro ducer). (2005, February 4). Interview with Ward Churchill; NFL under pressure to conformto decency standards. Paula Zahn Now [Television broad cast]. Retrieved Ju ne 28, 2005, from http://t ransc ripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/04/pzn.Ol.html

Olson, K. M., & Goodnight, G. T. (1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The socialcontroversy over fur. Quarterly Journal o f Speech, 80, 249-276.

On o, K. A., & Sloop, J. M. (1999). Critical rhetorics of controversy. Western Journal of Com munication, 63, 525-538.

O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005a, Jan uar y 28). To p story: Ward Churchill at Ham ilton C ollege [Electronicversion]. Th e O'Reilly Factor [Television broad cast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved Januar y 13, 2006, fromhttp://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow& showID= 112#2

O'Reilly, B. (Executive P roducer). (2005b, Jan uary 31). More controversy over U niv. of Colorado Professor Church ill[Electronic version]. The O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast). New York: Fox News. Retrieved Februa ry 12, 2005,from http://www.foxnews.com

O'Reilly, B. (2005c, February 2). Talking points memo: Hamilton College folds [Electronic version]. Fox News[Television broadca st]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved Februa ry 27, 2005, from http://www.foxnew s.com

O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005d, February 3). Wh y should C hurchill kee p his job? [Electronic version]. Th eO'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved M arch 3, 2005, from http://www .foxnews.

comO'Reilly, B. (Executive P roducer). (2005e, February 9). Wa rd Churchill's cult of personality [Electronic version]. Th e

O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://www .foxnews.com

O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005f, February 17). Will EWU invite Ward Churchill to speak after all?[Electronic version]. Th e O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2005,from http://www.foxnews.com

O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005g, February 18). Th e Go vernor of Wisconsin and Prof Wa rd Churchill[Electronic version]. Th e O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2005,f̂ rom http://www.foxnews.com

O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005h, February 23). A man whose brother perished on 9/11 reacts to WardChurchill [Electronic version]. Th e O'Reilly Factor [television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March3, 2005, from http://wTvw.foxnews.com

O'Reilly, B. (Executive Prod ucer). (2005i, March 2). Is the University of Colorad o out of control? [Electronic version].Th e O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://www.foxnews.com

O'Reilly, B. (2005j, March 3). Talking points memo: Professor Ward Churchill is a traitor [Electronic version]. FoxNews [Television broadcast[. New York: Fox News. Retrieved M arch 3, 2005, from http://www.foxnew s.com

Orla ndo D irect Action, (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved Jun e 15, 2005, from http://w ww .orlando directac tion.us/

churchill.htmlPalczewski, C. H. (2002). Argument in an off key: Playing with the pro ductive limits of argum ent. In G. T. Goo dnight

(Ed.), Arguing communication and culture: Selected papers from the Twelfth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation

(pp. 1-23). Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association.Parker, T., & Stone, M. (Executive Producers). (2005, March 16). South Park [Television broadcast]. New York:

Comedy Central.People & events: Native Americans and the transcontinental railroad. (2003) . PBS Onl in e . Re t r i eved J an ua r y 4 , 2006 , f rom

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/tcrr/peopleevents/e_tribes.htmlPhillips, K. R. (1999). A rhetoric of controversy. Westem Journal of Communication, 63, 488-510.Pimentel, O . R. (2005, February 12). Listening to the despicable. MilwaukeeJournal Sentinel, p. 16. Retrieved March

26 , 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.Report on conclusion of preliminary review in the matter of Professor Ward Churchill. (2005, March 24). Retrieved

Jun e 27, 2005, from http://www.colorado.edu/new s/reports/churchill/report.htmlRodzvilla, J. (Ed.). (2001). We've got blog: How weblogs are changing our culture. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Roper Center. (2001-2004). Presidential job performance. General approval trend for President Bush (2001-).

Retrieved Janua ry 12, 2006, from http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/ hsrun.exe/Rope rweb/PresJob/PresJob.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Bush



205

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY ERITCH ET AL

Smith, L. M. (2005, February 19). Colorad o professor and the 1st Am endm ent [Letter to the editor]. Los Angeles Times,

p. B18. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.Spivak, G. C. (2004). Terror: A speech after 9-11. Boundary 2, 81-111.Stewart, J. H. (2005, February 1). Kirkland Project panel cancelled [Press release]. Retrieved Ju ne 27, 2005, from

http ://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?ID=9020Storatz, G. (2005, February 17). Entire Ethn ic Studies Departm ent a fraud [Letter to the editor]. Rocky Mountain News,

p. 46A. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.Tan kersley, J. (2005, February 21). Financial fallout for colleges. Rocky Mountain News, p. 27A. Retrieved March 26,

2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.W ebb, A. (20 06,June 19). No m ore guessing whether fruit is ripe. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, p. El. Retrieved March 26,

2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.West, T. (1996). Beyond dissensus: Exploring the heuristic value of conflict. Rhetoric Review, 75(1), 142-155.Willard, C. A. (1996). Liberalism an d the problem of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Wo rthington, P. (2005, February 14). He 's mystery man of hate; Wan nabe Indian, Prof W ard C hurchill virulently

anti-U.S. Th e Toronto Sun, p. 29. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.York, M. (2005, January 31). Remark on 9/11 sparks storm at college. The New York Times, p. B3. Retrieved March

26 , 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.Zelizer, B. (1995). Reading the past against the grain: The shape of memory studies. Critical Studies in Mass

Communication, 12 , 214-239.Zizek, S. (2002). Welcome to the desert of the real: Five essays on September 11 and related dates. London: Verso.

disingenuous controversy

Documents