I’ve been meaning to comment on the Ward Churchill firestorm for a while now. Having read much of his work on native issues in the past, I was very familiar with Churchill even before he became a figurehead in the right’s lefties-are-terrorist-sympathizers campaign.

As a historian addressing the grievances of Native Americans and the United States’ genocidal relationship with indigenous peoples, Churchill is an unrelenting and provocative voice whose contributions to the literature about colonialism are indispensable. As a political activist, however, Churchill’s reverence for violence is troublesome. John Nichols, Washington Correspondent for The Nation and editorial page editor of The Capital Times, argues that it is this troublesomeness that gives Churchill’s writing its value. Discussing Churchill’s Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America, a book co-authored by Mike Ryan that contends that pacifism is incapable of achieving victories in the struggle for social justice, Nichols echoes my perspective poignantly.

[I] read the book with interest, and found it to be an engaging enough statement of a controversial point of view. It made me think. It forced me to reconsider some of my own presumptions — although, instead of changing my thinking, Churchill’s critique ultimately reinforced my faith that Thoreau, Gandhi, King and their followers are the real change agents. And, while I don’t appreciate its premise any more than I do George Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war making, Churchill’s book remains on the shelf of serious books to which I return for information and insight.

In other words, while I probably disagree with Ward Churchill more than most of his right-wing critics, I recognize him as a challenging public intellectual who has prodded and provoked my thinking in ways that I have to respect.

Churchill’s take on the events of 11 September 2001 is certainly difficult to stomach. As a pacifist, no justification for indiscriminate violence is acceptable. Still, Churchill’s argument is interesting and, as Nichols explains, challenges those who engage it to provide a reasoned refutation.

Churchill’s argument is a troubling one, as it takes a legitimate point of view — that wrong-minded US policies increase the likelihood that this country and its citizens will become terrorist targets — and turns it into an argument that reads like a justification for what most people in the United States and abroad see as indefensible violence.

But, while Churchill’s views are radical, and to some offensive, the movement to prevent him from expressing those views on campuses is even more troubling. Ideas that provoke debate are the lifeblood of higher education. Bad arguments get dismissed soon enough. But in the process of discarding the bad, good ideas are invariably made stronger.

Indeed. And it is this “Marketplace of Ideas” metaphor that explains so vividly the importance of respectful dialogue in a democratic society. Rather than call for his resignation and attack his character, those who disagree with Churchill’s contentions should engage them substantively, adding to the dialogue and advancing the public’s understanding of terrorism and its context.

Inculcating in students an appreciation for healthy and vigorous public debate is one of the primary benefits of academic debate at both the high school and collegiate levels. Rather than attack those with whom they disagree, opinion leaders and political pundits should be pressuring schools to increase opportunities for participation in debate. Regardless of the format, engagement in the art of argumentation and the interplay of ideas is an invaluable part of a progressive curriculum.

However wrong Ward Churchill is about 11 September, those who would rather silence than engage him are the real threat to a healthy democracy.