Amendment 1.5

Earlier this week, HBO aired Shouting Fire: Stories from the edge of free speech, a documentary detailing a few examples of the consequences of people simply speaking their mind. As with all HBO documentaries, it was especially well done, and as someone, like myself, that is a huge first amendment advocate, it was greatly enjoyable. However, in light of a great deal of research I have been doing on the collegiate system, especially in the area of tenure and academic freedom, I can see where what the first amendment really stands for is being greatly misconstrued.

A perfect example of this is the case of Ward Churchhill, fired for comments made in an essay regarding the victims of 9/11, referring to them as “little Eichmanns,” a reference to the Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann. The essay was written just days after the attack, but not made well known until Churchhill was scheduled to give a speech in New York in 2005, and a local paper published it. Once widely known, Churchhill faced widespread pressure from advocacy groups and the general public, and his position as professor, which he had held for over 30 years, seemed in danger.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. Despite those comments, and constant calls for Churchhills firing, the school went a different route, presumably to avoid a first amendment issue. They initiated an investigation into his entire body of work, culminating in plagiarism charges, and finally fired him. Churchhill filed suit, and eventually won a one dollar award for damages and no guarantee of his previous position; technically a victory, but a useless one at that.

Despite the questionable strategy used to hide the real motives behind the firing, there is no injustice in its actually happening. Unlike the cries from first amendment advocates, this is not a first amendment issue. Did he have a right to say how he felt? Absolutely. Did he, as a professor, have the academic freedom to say what he did? Possibly, but this was written, not in his professorial capacity, but as an essay for a newspaper. Additionally, while the first amendment allows the freedom of speech, it does not guarantee freedom from consequences of that speech.

Consider Don Imus. Calling the members of the Rutgers women basketball team “knappy headed ho’s” was undoubtedly inappropriate, but also was a right guaranteed to him by the constitution. The first amendment did not protect his job however, and he was fired when his superiors realized that keeping him on their airwaves would cost advertisers, and the pressure exerted by advocate groups was not worth fighting. In an intelligent business decision, he was let go, a consequence of his insensitive statements.

The difference between the two is simple. One took place in the for-profit public sector, and one took place in the surreal world of publicly funded academia, that zero-accountability machine that so many hide behind in the name of academic freedom. The university that employed Mr. Churchhill faced reduced enrollment and tremendous pressure from the past alumni, and therefore donations, as a result of his comments; dismissing him was the intelligent business decision. His right to free speech was not violated, and the universities right to impose consequences was made use of, certainly to his detriment. Free speech advocates use this example as a grave injustice, but this is simply a conclusion of the ignorant.

Constitutionally, Americans have the right to bear arms, but should that right be abused, there are consequences for it. Freedom of speech is guaranteed, and should it be misused, there are consequences for it. Mr. Churchhill was not held to a higher standard; rather, his being used to hiding behind academic freedom and the first amendment, he was surprised to be held to any standard. Freedom of speech is exactly that, and only that. The free speech without consequences amendment, as far as I know, has yet to be codified.