RD4 Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Not Listen

Cherish Kalilikane

28 NOV 11

RD4

Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Not Listen

“The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government “(Cornell).  Everyone in America had the right to these constitutional freedoms and everyone also has a different definition of what freedom of speech actually means. [THESIS]Regardless of Ward Churchill’s opinionated statements he is allowed to make them because he is an American and is provided with the same constitutional rights as everyone else [THESIS].

           

Freedom of speech has changed in society throughout the generations. Although many believe there is a freedom in society for Americans to speak as they please, it was not always that way. Take the civil war for example, when African Americans had no say in how they were to be treated or even the right to fight their own battles to get out of slavery. There are many ideas that make people think America allows full freedom of speech. What about these questionable handlings of Ward Churchill’s freely spoken speeches? Why if people believe so strongly in freedom of speech do they argue once someone uses that very freedom? In an article about the first amendment and high school students Linda Campbell states, “But democracy can be a messy business that entails questioning the official status quo. How do you simultaneously teach students to value social order and to embrace a clashing of ideas that resembles mayhem? “(Campbell) Yes, Churchill stated very provocative things in his articles of globalization but it is as if another person was incapable of saying those things.

How can teachers teach students the right to freedom of speech but shun a man using a great example of what American’s have the right to do? There aren’t many people with bold statements that can make philosophical wonders a thing of the past. Ward Churchill should be commended for using his right for freedom of speech to its utmost power. Although he may have overstated things and angered a lot of people in doing so, because he is an American he can speak as he pleases. It is your choice to listen. Campbell states, “As the study points out, ‘High school students’ attitudes about the First Amendment are important because each generation of citizens helps define what freedom means in our society”(Campbell). Exactly, if the younger generations see how Ward Churchill is being prosecuted just for using his right to free speech it may persuade them to hold back on making future hugely profound statements. Ideally, I believe the founding fathers thought up the First Amendment to give people the understanding that they have the right to open up their thoughts and speak them freely. Perhaps their notions were to speak thoughts that would help society rather than cause a ruckus. I believe Churchill’s thoughts, although not the most positive ones, can be very thought provoking and can help future generations think about political views in a new light rather than it’s preconceived notions.

People are easily angered at things they don’t need to listen to. When reading letters to the editor about Churchill’s visit to speak at UH Manoa there were many angry letters questioning why he came at all. Parkinson wrote, “On the other hand, it had been determined that Churchill is not an Indian, although he has professed to be and he doesn’t even have a doctorate that he can claim as a credential! To hide the kind of actions, and the philosophy, expounded by this man under the umbrella of “academic freedom” simply shows how low our academic system has fallen”(Parkinson). What anger from a person’s voice for such things he didn’t need to witness. I understand that Parkinson has just as much right as Churchill to speak as he pleases but to what extent will it be just monotonous ringing? Many before Parkinson has blabbered on and on about Churchill wasting time and money but the great thing about being an American is the ability to not have to listen to a person’s free speech.

Churchill indubitably over exaggerates many statements which is why he is in the mess he is in right creating great controversy. An example of Churchill going to far was stated in his writings of globalization stating, “There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Getting ‘Jeremy’ and ‘Ellington’ to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little ‘Tiffany’ and ‘Ashley’ had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords”(Churchill).  Allison makes a great point in our Laulima discussions while defending Churchill. She states, “In preparing a speech on a controversial subject, it leads to clarity of the opinion and information regarding the subject is shared. These opinions lead to debates that eventually lead to a resolution. It also makes people take interest in the controversy at hand. Controversy also leads to an open mind as the pros and cons of the subject are expressed. With open minds we become more accepting of others and have fewer prejudices” (Matsumoto). Great understanding of how Churchill can be an acceptable character with things to offer. Just because Churchill says particular things general public sees as unfavorable doesn’t mean that his statements should be shunned as trash. I believe that if any statement is thought of as trash there is something that needs to be looked at deeper in to that statement to find it’s underlying truths.

During Laulima discussions Carolyn Rose-Slane also agreed that Churchill challenged people’s thinking and once engaged he was more than glad to explain his reasoning. Carolyn stated, “If we hear the same point of view all the time, we are not challenged to question it, or think about it. It is important to the democratic process that different ideas and points of views are examined. People may not like what they hear from Ward Churchill and others who express unpopular opinions, but they are a necessary and important part of keeping our democracy from stagnating”(Slane). I couldn’t have stated it any better. Churchill’s behavior is admirable in the sense that it is an underlying factor in keeping this nation from being unchanging. People like Churchill create thought provoking questions and maintain the balance by always keeping the light on what is going on in politics. Adversity isn’t always bad and happiness isn’t always enlightening. It is an American’s right to speak what their mind wants be it good or bad. It is also an American’s right to not listen.

Works Cited

Campbell, Linda. "So What Does It Do for Me?" Star-Telegram.com 3 Feb. 2005. 8 Feb. 2005 <http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/linda_campbell/10805866.htm?1c>.

Churchill, Ward."Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." N.d. Dark Night Press_. From _Pockets of Resistance_, 11 Sep. 2001. 14 Nov. 2011 [http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&c=recent&view=9&long=1].

"First Amendment: An Overview." N.d. Legal Information Instiitute. Cornell Law School. 5 June 2003 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html.>

Matsumoto, Alison. “Defending Ward Churchill” Online posting 26 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 27 Nov. 2011 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/tool/e24f70fd-6ce1-4c3b-8cb9-78e4e4cff63d/posts/list/425376.page].

Parkinson, R.W. Letter. _Star Bulletin_. 21 Feb. 2005. 23 Feb. 2005 <http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/21/editorial/letters.html>

Slane, Carolyn. “Defending Ward Churchill” Online posting 25 Nov. 2011. Laulima Discussion. 27 Nov. 2011 [https://laulima.hawaii.edu/portal/tool/e24f70fd-6ce1-4c3b-8cb9-78e4e4cff63d/posts/list/425222.page].