ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY

42 (Spring 2006): 190-205

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY: RESPONSES

TO WARD CHURCHILL'S 9/11 ESSAY
by John Fritch, Catherine Helen Palczewski, Jennifer Farrell, and
Eric Short
The 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 words: controversy, disingenuous con-
troversy. Ward Churchill, 9/11, collective memory, ripeness

At the end of January 2005, controversy' erupted concerning an online essay that
University of Colorado Ethnic Studies Professor, Ward Churchill, authored on September
11, 2001, 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 the
attackers' 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 World Trade Center 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 Fritch 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 * Biennial Conference on'
ArgumentaUon, Alta, Utah, August, 2005, and at the NaUonal CommunicaUon AssociaUon conference, San Antonio,
Texas, November, 2006, where it received "Top Paper" honors from the ArgumentaUon and Forensics Division. The
authors would like to thank Randall Lake and the reviewers for their helpful criUcisms. Correspondence concerning
this arUcle should be addressed to John Fritch, Department of CommunicaUon Studies, Universitv of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, Iowa .50614-0139. E-mail: john.fritch@uni.edu
'IniUally, we use controversy only to reHect media labeling of the issue (Curtin, Pankratz, & Kane, 2005- Ensslin
2005; Flynn, 2005; Goodman, 2005; Kane, 2005; Merritt & Pankratz, 2005; O'Reilly, 2005b, 2005d 2005e- Oriando
Direct AcUon, n.d.; Smallwood, 2005; Tankersley, 2005; Worthington, 2005; and York, 2005). We recognize that the
literature disUnguishes among types of controversy. Ono & Sloop (l999) disUnguish between "commensurable"
(where two or more posiUons disagree on the outcome of a shared quesUon") and "incommensurable" controversies
(where "the legiUmacy of the logics and insUtuUons employed are at base being undermined") (p. 529). Boyd (2002)
disUnguishes between science-based, regulatory, and social controversy. Phillips (1999) differenUates rhetorical from
discursive controversy.
 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.
Then, on January 26, 2005, more than 40 months 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, January 28, the top story on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor 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; Merritt & 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
PresidentJ. H. Stewart (2005) canceled the panel, citing "[c]redible threats of violence" as the
reason. 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 academic investigation of Churchill is not our primary focus. Nonetheless, particularly because the "Roosting
Chickens" controversy helped sparked an external review of UC-Boulder's tenure process (Fogg, 2006), it is an
interesting window into the closely related topic of the ways that universities cope with controversy. The Chancellor's
preliminary investigation concluded that, although "Professor Churchill has outraged the Colorado and national
communities as a result of profoundly offensive, abusive, and misguided statements relating to the victims of the
horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks on America," his First Amendment rights protected him from university censure
{Report, 2005, Summary of the Chancellor's review and decisions, 1] 1). However, this review also found that
allegations of research misconduct warranted further investigation. Per established procedures, an investigative panel
then was named by the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct After some delay, caused by the resignations
of two members in November 2005, the panel found that Churchill had committed academic misconduct and the
university's interim chancellor initiated procedures to fire Churchill.
^Faughnan also appeared on Vie O'Reilly Factor, during which O'Reilly {2005g) discouraged him from engaging
Churchill in dialogue.
 192

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY SPRING 2006

references to the Eichmann comment (Parker & Stone, 2005), which some 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 emerge
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 January 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, and
negotiation 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.

THE DARK SIDE OF CONTROVERSY

Within argumentation studies, it now is widely accepted that consensus is not necessarily
the 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 engagement seems unlikely, controversy becomes a necessary means of
creating the conditions for argument to proceed.
In his Alta Argumentation Conference keynote, G. Thomas Goodnight (1991) celebrated
controversy because it "pushes the limits of the available means of communication [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 development
by argumentative engagement" (p. 5). Controversy, then, is not a sign of a sick society or a
demos incapable of action but, instead, often is a sign of a public capable of evolution,
changing in response to shifting beliefs, norms, and conditions.
Working with Goodnight, Kathryn Olson later would expand this theory through an
analysis of the fur controversy in the United States, a controversy that pushes and pulls at the
boundaries of the public and private, as well as the meaning of consumption in a late
 193

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY FRITCH ET AL

capitalist society. Olson and Goodnight (1994) contend: "Social controversy challenges the
parameters of public discussion by extending argumentative engagements to the less con-
sensually-based cultural and social regions of oppositional argument. Oppositional argu-
ments work outside and against traditional practices of influence" (p. 250). The purpose of
oppositional argument is not necessarily to persuade (or find bases of identification) but to
render evident and sustain challenges to "communication practices that delimit the proper
expression of opinion and constrain the legitimate formation of judgment within personal
and public spheres" (p. 250).* Central to their analysis is a consideration of the way
oppositional argument functions in both its discursive and nondiscursive forms.
Claims are refuted and norms of participation disputed through discursive argument. The
move to close off these discursive challenges often channels communication into nondiscur-
sive argument that can "usher into the public realm aspects of life that are hidden away,
habitually ignored, or routinely disconnected from public appearance" (Olson & Goodnight,
1994, p. 252). When deployed by those who seek to engender controversy, nondiscursive
arguments can "redefine and realign the boundaries of private and public space" (p. 252).
We would caution against Olson and Goodnight's formulation of the discursive and
nondiscursive as possessing two distinct functions. Given that they recognize the performa-
tive role of the discursive argumentative objection, it also is important to note that opposi-
tional argument always already entwines both discursive and nondiscursive forms and,
hence, functions (Palczewski, 2002). Randall Lake (1990) notes that personae in argument
invite assent at both the discursive and nondiscursive levels because "arguments seek assent
not only to the claim stated but also to the claim enacted" (p. 83). Thus, when assessing forms
and functions, Olson and Goodnight's clean distinctions may obscure the ways in which
discursive and nondiscursive arguments may intersect and stoke false controversy.
Attention to this intersection is important because those seeking to expand the productive
limits of argument are not the only ones who may call on the nondiscursive's intersection
with the discursive. The nondiscursive can be collapsed almost completely into the perfor-
mative element of the discursive, as appears to be the case with Churchill, where the arguer
becomes as much an issue as the argument. Although enactment often is used for productive
ends (Palczewski, 2002), in this case it seems to be used to close off consideration of the claim
advanced. ChurchiU's oppositional argument occurs almost exclusively in the discursive
realm, in the form of an online essay (perhaps the most disembodied form of discourse
available). However, those critical of his discursive claim have focused attention on the
nondiscursive claim that he enacts. Flipping Lake's terms, dissenters from Churchill's claims
object by dissenting from Churchill. They focus not on his (discursive) arguments but on
(nondiscursive) him.
A complete understanding of the dynamics of controversy requires attention both to
controversy's genuine abihty to expand discursive space and to its artificial deployment so as
to divert attention from the claims advanced. This is especially the case because even

•"The relationship between oppositional argument and oppositional consciousness, which Mansbridge (2001)
defines as "an empowering mental state that prepares members of an oppressed group to act to undermine, reform,
or overthrow a system of human domination" (pp. 4-5), poses provocative questions. Is the presence of an
oppositional consciousness necessary for the development and deployment of oppositional argument? In any case,
Mansbridge's warning about the possible excesses of oppositional consciousness are important because such excesses
may be replicated in oppositional argument: "Oppositional consciousness is not always good for the subordinate
group" because it may exaggerate one's difference from the dominant group, generate resistance to considering
information outside of one's ideological framework, and lead to essentialism (p. 16).
 194

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY 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 antagonisms
reveal the limitations of existing formations of discourse and create a space where alternative discursive and
material systems may be proposed. .. . [CJontroversial articulations serve to dislocate or disorient dominant
systems of discourse, (p. 494)

Out of these moments 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. As
Goodnight (1999) argues, "controversy cannot be valorized as resistance leading to change
causing reform" because "controversy can be 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 he previously described as "the confections of mass media" (Goodnight, 1991, p. 7).
As he notes wryly, "public discourse is not always everything it claims to be," in part because
"any of the controversies that now receive critical [and media] attention are those served up
by the contemporary mass-media's version of 'publicity'" (Goodnight, 1991, p. 7). Perhaps
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 reinforced
rather than redrawn,' 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 problem/cause/solution 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 who
would challenge the Bush administration's construal of the 9/11 attacks. The first was an exchange involving
conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza on September 17, 2001, on Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher D'Souza
opmed that those who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center could not be called cowards, and Maher agreed
Yet, only Maher was condemned (see Kim, 2002, p. 11). We can find no evidence that D'Souza ever was criticized
while ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract. Second, five months after 9/11, Mike Marland of the Concord
New Hampshire, Monitor (or Patriot, reports differ) and his editor were fired after the newspaper published Marland's
cartoon of the President flying an airplane labeled "Bush budget" into tvrin towers marked "Social" and "Security "
So sacred was the iconic image of the burning towers in public memory that Marland's appropriation, for the purpose
ot making an entirely different point, still was anathema.
 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 September 11 were far from proportional 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
went no further than "waving signs" ("The Politics of a Perpetrator Population" section, \\ 4).
Churchill next examines the hijackers' actions, claiming that they did not "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 imposed on Iraq and the collateral casualties of the first Iraq war. Churchill 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 of
the 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 in
the usual US-centered political analyses. Such a gesture matches the media overkill to "mourn" the dead with
every 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 provoked. For over three years, the essay went unnoticed. Then, suddenly, a firestorm of
criticism erupted.

Why the Intense Reaction?

Throughout the media coverage of, and participation in, the controversy, the only part of
the 5,657-word essay that was direcdy quoted or referenced (repeatedly) was Churchifl's
two-word labeling of those working in the World Trade Centers as "litde Eichmanns"
(Ensslin, 2005; Fogg, 2006; Gurwitz, 2005; Hanson, 2005; Harsanyi, 2005;Jeffs, 2005; Kane,
 196

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY SPRING 2006

2005; Merritt & Pankratz, 2005; Morson, 2005; O'Reilly, 2005h; Worthington, 2005; 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 comparison, critics alleged, meant that Churchill was "demonizing the
victims of Sept. 11" (Curtin, Pankratz, & Kane, 2005). Talk show host and NewsMax.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. And not just litde Nazis, but Nazi exterminators" (^ 2). Controversy 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 phrase not because the phrase conveys a serious argument that represents
the 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. Commentators constandy 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 report this explanation (Maher et al., 2005; York, 2005).
The dynamics of these instances are instructive: They reveal that the intense reaction to
Churchill'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
condemned the technocracy'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 phone, Maher remembered Eichmann as the murderer 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 trial
brought the evils of the Holocaust to the world's attention, and fixed him in collective
memory as a war criminal in a way that the Nuremburg defendants were not (Felman, 2001).
His trial transformed him into the quintessential Nazi-no disconnected technocrat, but the
most heinous perpetrator of violence-as it transformed the most detached of crimes into "the
highest-and not just the newest-crime against humanity" (Eelman, 2001, p. 205). This
slippage between Eichmann-the-bureaucrat-of-the-Holocaust and Eichmann-the-Holocaust
 197

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY FRITCH ET AL

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 out of one sentence out of one twenty page 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 under
what 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 hateful... He's an American hater" (O'Reilly, 2005b). O'Reilly
repeatedly called Churchifl a "radical" (2005c, 2005f, 2005g), and others called him an
"America-hating activist [with a] . . . widespread contempt 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 supporter" (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 treasonous hate speech [had] . . . contaminat[ed] young
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 powder" was the appropriate response (Farber, 2005, H 24). Such a reaction
eerily recafls Colonel John Chivington's infamous order to commence the 1864 massacre at
Sand Creek, Colorado: "Kill and scalp all, big and litde; nits make 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
reduced to their emotional import. Virtually no discussion of his essay's central ideas
occurred. The meaning oi Churchifl's words was not considered. What mattered, instead, was
their emotional effect "cruel" (O'Reilly, 2005b); "hurtiul language" (Faughnan on O'Reifly,
2005h); "terribly insensitive" (Pat Hayes as quoted in Ensslin, 2005); showing "a total lack of
sensitivity and decency, and a basic lack of understanding of fair play and human under-
 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 the
Chancellor's review and decisions, HI). The merits of the essay's arguments were 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, 2005, H 8). Nonetheless, Churchill's description of those who died on 9/11 as
technocrats dehumanized them by reducing them to "mere symbols" (H 3). Thus, Faughnan
argued, Churchill "disgracefully use[d] the victims of 9/11 to advance your own cause" (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). Faughnan, whose insight into the controversy was unusually nuanced,
understood more clearly than most that Churchill had provoked such vehement reactions
because "he has stepped on sacred ground with us" (on O'Reilly, 2005h). Next, we examine
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 multiple
factors 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, which
change the color of a fruit over time, indicating ripeness. Interestingly, because ambient
ethylene also enables fruit to spoil, it sometimes is called the "death hormone" (Webb, 2006).
Elements external to the fruit, combined with the passage of time, influence its ripeness, and
the extended passage of time creates conditions under which fruit rots.
Ripeness is relevant to social controversy in many ways. First, just as some issues do not
have legal standing and some unripe plants are inedible, not everything rises to a level that
 199

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY FRITCH ET AL

warrants public attention. Second, 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 speaking engagement; (2) the increasing role of blogs; (3)
declining support for the Iraq War; (4) broader scrutiny of the University of Colorado-
Boulder; and (5) the grief cycle and its relation to collective memory. These 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 students-particularly Matthew Coppo, whose father, Joseph, died in the 9/11 attacks-
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 Coppo concluded, "It's a little remembrance thing" (quoted in Nelson, 2005). The
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 war
on terrorism. Linking Iraq to the war on terrorism and, hence, to the events of 9/11,
constructed ChurchiU's opinion of 9/11 as typical of opposition to the war in Iraq. Second,
conservative commentators charged that critics of the Bush administration were un-Ameri-
can. Because he dared compare 9/11 victims to Nazis, Churchill became the epitome of
anti-American opposition to Bush. ChurchiU had attempted to place the 9/11 attacks within
a broader discussion of U.S. foreign policy. In order to stifle such discussion, conservative
200

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY 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 amok (O'Reilly, 2005i), in which a liberal professor could make "moronic, 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 to
develop. 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 remembered.
The time was ripe to judge the acceptability of out-law (Sloop & Ono, 1997) remembrances
of 9/11.
The controversy surrounding Churchill became ripe only as numerous factors coalesced
at 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:
There is no inevitability of conflict... or no easy way to predict that this rather than that memory production
will serve as a site for articulation of opposite views. . . . To say that memory disputes happen when something
hits a sensitive public nerve may be part of the explanation; however, most of the time, we only know this after
the fact. (p. 68)

Although prediction may not be possible, retrospective understanding of the reasons why
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 memory. The nature of public memory may 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 needs of the public it serves. Barry Schwartz (1982) notes: "Recollection of the past is an
active, constructive process, not a simple matter of retrieving information. To remember is
to place a part of the past in the service of conceptions and needs of the present" (p. 374).
Whether public memory accurately remembers the past is less important than whether it is
useful in the present (Gray & Oliver, 2001).
This characteristic explains why critics did not attack Churchill's version of past U.S.
foreign policy and, instead, attacked the man as a traitor. Calling him a traitor doesn't
challenge his veracity; indeed, effective traitors pstss on highly accurate information. Instead,
 201

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY FRITCH ET AL

the 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 more 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 whether 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 most "unorthodox communication 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 meaning
of 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.
Churchill'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
"little Eichmanns" comment squelched dissent just as it was beginning to surface. Critics
made clear: "Dissenters look like Churchill. Don't dissent."
This case illustrates controversy's dark side. Time, place, agency, and agents converged to
ripen the issue to the level of disingenuous controversy in the early days of 2005, rather than
in the days immediately following 9/11 and the essay's appearance. Instead of challenging
202

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY 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 Colorado in particular, and the 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, although
coalescent 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
Eichmann 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, emphasis
added).
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

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (Electronic version], 387 U.S. 136 (1967). Retrieved February 13, 2007, from
Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.
Arendt, H. (1994). Eichmann injerusalem: A report on the banality ofeviL New York: Penguin Books. (Original work
published 1963)
Boyd,J. (2002). Public and technical interdependence: Regulatory controversy, out-law discourse, and the messy case
of Olestra. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39, 91-109.
 203

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY FRITCH ET AL

Browne, S. H. (2004). Arendt, Eichmann, and the politics of remembrance. In K. Phillips (Ed.), Framing public memory
(pp. 45-64). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Buechner v. Bond [Electronic version], 650 S.W.2d 611 (1983). Retrieved February 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=l
Churchill, W. (2005, February 8). [Speech at University of Colorado-Boulder]. 9News. Boulder: KUSA-TV. Stream-
ing video retrieved June 23, 2005, from http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&
IKOBJECTID=f3fcdl91-0abe-421a-01bc-e9a296571dlf&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-aclf-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf
Cohen, A. (2005, February 18). The Lawrence Summers mess: Harvard enters the Internet age. Vie New York Times,
p. 18.
Curtin, D., Pankratz, H., & Kane, A. (2005, February 13). Questions stoke Ward Churchill's firebrand past. The Denver
Post, p. AOI. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_0002709008
DiStefano, P. (2005, February 3). Remarks by Chancellor Phil DiStefano at the CU Board of Regents special meeting.
Retrieved June 27, 2005, from http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/49.html
Drezner, D. W., & Farrell, H. (2004, August). The power and politics of blogs. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved December 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.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/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, from
http://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 June
22, 2005, from http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/sl l/churchill_faughnan.html
Felman, S. (2001). Theaters of justice: Arendt injerusalem, the Eichmann trial, and the redefinition of legal meaning
in 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 http:// www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news/article/0,1299,DRMN_3_4754306,00.html
Fogg, P. (2006, January 6). All eyes on tenure: Amid public scrutiny, the U. of Colorado 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.democracynow.orK/article
pl?sid=05/02/18/15721I
Goodnight, G. T. (1991, November). Controversy. In D. W. Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the
Seventh 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 November 14, 2001, from InfoTrac database.
Gurwitz, J. (2005, February 16). Academics too often rally behind the wrong idea. San Antonio Express-News, p. 9B.
Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.
Hamilton College. (2005). Kirkland Project Panel with Ward Churchill: News and information [Web page]. Retrieved
June 27, 2005, from http://www.hamilton.edu/news/wardchurchill/
Hanson, E. (2005, February 21). America 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 June 22, 2005, from http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com
Inauguration 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]. USA
Today, p. lOA. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.
Johnson, C. (2004). Blowback: The costs and consequences of American empire (2nd ed.). New York: Henry Holt.
Kane, A. (2005, February 17). Clashes with Churchill found, CU records show several complaints about profs
behavior. The Denver Post, p. BOl. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.
Karlin, B., & Stewart, J. (Executive Producers). (2005, February 24). The Daily Show [Television broadcast]. New York:
Comedy Central.
Kim, W. (2002, May 26). The end of the affair. The New York Times Magazine, 11-12.
Lake, R. (1990). The implied arguer. In D. C. Williams and M. D. Hazen (Eds.), Argumentation theory and the rhetoric
of assent (pp. 69-90).Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
204

DISINGENUOUS CONTROVERSY SPRING 2006

Maher, 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 November 8, 2006, from http://www.safesearching.
com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_real time_030405.htm
Mansbridge,J. (2001). The making of oppositional consciousness. InJ. Mansbridge and A. Morris (Eds.), Oppositional
consciousness (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. Retrieved
March 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. Retrieved
March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.
Nelson, M. (Executive Producer). (2005, February 4). Interview with Ward Churchill; NFL under pressure to conform
to decency standards. Paula Zahn Now [Television broadcast]. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from http://transcripts.
cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/04/pzn.Ol.html
Olson, K. M., & Goodnight, G. T. (1994). Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social
controversy over fur. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 80, 249-276.
Ono, K. A., & Sloop, J. M. (1999). Critical rhetorics of controversy. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 525-538.
O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005a, January 28). Top story: Ward Churchill at Hamilton College [Electronic
version]. The O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved January 13, 2006, from
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID= 112#2
O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005b, January 31). More controversy over Univ. of Colorado Professor Churchill
[Electronic version]. The O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast). New York: Fox News. Retrieved February 12, 2005,
from http://www.foxnews.com
O'Reilly, B. (2005c, February 2). Talking points memo: Hamilton College folds [Electronic version]. Fox News
[Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved February 27, 2005, from http://www.foxnews.com
O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005d, February 3). Why should Churchill keep his job? [Electronic version]. The
O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://www.foxnews.
com
O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005e, February 9). Ward Churchill's cult of personality [Electronic version]. The
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]. The 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). The Governor of Wisconsin and Prof Ward Churchill
[Electronic version]. The O'Reilly Factor [Television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2005,
f^rom http://www.foxnews.com
O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005h, February 23). A man whose brother perished on 9/11 reacts to Ward
Churchill [Electronic version]. The O'Reilly Factor [television broadcast]. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March
3, 2005, from http://wTvw.foxnews.com
O'Reilly, B. (Executive Producer). (2005i, March 2). Is the University of Colorado out of control? [Electronic version].
The 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]. Fox
News [Television broadcast[. New York: Fox News. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://www.foxnews.com
Orlando Direct Action, (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.orlandodirectaction.us/
churchill.html
Palczewski, C. H. (2002). Argument in an off key: Playing with the productive limits of argument. In G. T. Goodnight
(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 Online. Retrieved January 4, 2006, from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/tcrr/peopleevents/e_tribes.html
Phillips, K. R. (1999). A rhetoric of controversy. Westem Journal of Communication, 63, 488-510.
Pimentel, O. R. (2005, February 12). Listening to the despicable. Milwaukee Journal 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
June 27, 2005, from http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html
Rodzvilla, 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 January 12, 2006, from http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/cgi-bin/ hsrun.exe/Roperweb/PresJob/Pres
Job.htx;start=HS_fullresults?pr=Bush
Roy, A. (2004). Public power in the age of empire. New York: Open Media.
Ruddick, S. (2003). The moral horror of the September attacks. Hypatia, 18, 212-222.
Schwartz, B. (1982). The social context of commemoration: A study of collective memory. Social Forces, 61,374-402.
Shackelford, R. (2005, March 18). South Park bitch slaps Ward Churchill. Message posted to Thejawa Report.
Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/072018.php
Sloop,J. M., & Ono, K. A. (1997). Out-law discourse: The critical politics of material judgment. Philosophy &Rhetoric,
30, 50-69.
Smallwood, S. (2005, February 18). Inside a free-speech firestorm. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A10-A12.
 205

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY ERITCH ET AL

Smith, L. M. (2005, February 19). Colorado professor and the 1st Amendment [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 June 27, 2005, from
http ://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?ID=9020
Storatz, G. (2005, February 17). Entire Ethnic Studies Department a fraud [Letter to the editor]. Rocky Mountain News,
p. 46A. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.
Tankersley, J. (2005, February 21). Financial fallout for colleges. Rocky Mountain News, p. 27A. Retrieved March 26,
2007, from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe database.
Webb, A. (2006,June 19). No more 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 and the problem of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Worthington, P. (2005, February 14). He's mystery man of hate; Wannabe Indian, Prof Ward Churchill virulently
anti-U.S. The 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.