Churchill at Depaul - 3

Wuxtry, wuxtry, Depaul dustup? and No wuxtry for a reason: Churchill at DePaul again of 20 & 28 Oct. has another good reason why media were not allowed at the Ward Churchill talk at DePaul University, namely that Churchill, who is paid for appearances by administrators coast to coast, has money to make 

 

The Hawaii Reporter, in a “Special Report by Grant Crowell,”

has uncovered Ward’s behind-the-scenes "New Rules" for his paid speaking engagements to universities nationwide, a carefully orchestrated agenda to suppress speech of others, all in the name of his own personal greed.

Crowell’s production company, Walking Eagle Productions, wanted to film Churchill and interview him.  He talked to DePaul administrator Dr. Harvette Grey, head of its Cultural Center, who was very cordial.

Apparently she had assumed that I was a supporter of Churchill’s, and she started confiding in me how horrible the media was for being critical of her for inviting Churchill. She promised me enthusiastically that she would check with him on my request, and that she would personally get back to me soon.

She didn’t, nor would she speak to him when he called a week later.

[H]er receptionist refused to let me speak with her, stating their official line that Churchill’s event was being closed off to the media, and only available to "The DePaul Community." I mentioned that Dr. Grey promised me that I was to receive a response directly from her, or at least some kind of explanation. To my surprise, the receptionist then blurted coldly, "Dr. Grey never spoke with you" before hanging up.

It wasn’t her idea.  She was taking orders from Churchill.

I later learned that it was Churchill himself who had demanded of Dr. Grey not to allow my documentary crew to film the event, for no interviews to be given by him or the Cultural Center, and certainly no recordings be made of his event by anyone outside of his own group. On the night of Churchill’s speaking event -- the university orchestrated with Churchill its "High Security" mode, something it had very rarely done for any speaker, if at all. Anyone without a DePaul ID was to be barred from even entering the building, as extra police was hired along with campus security to prevent Churchill from being exposed to any potential protestors.

But Crowell got a boot-legged audio tape of his talk and put it on line.  Churchill emailed him — a first for him; he had refused to have anything to do with Crowell — threatening a law suit based on violation of copyright, just as he would be sued if he bootlegged “a Dylan or Steve Earle concert.”  Churchill explicitly referred to himself as a “performer.”  Among conclusions Crowell drew was that

Churchill believes that anything that comes out of his mouth is, by his decree, automatically copyrighted material. (According to this, he can never be quoted or filmed by anyone at any public or private event for any use without his express consent, and his due monies.

Moreover, Churchill aims to “control all dialogue,” “make challenges [he doesn’t] have to uphold,” “resell the same stuff” at $4,000 - $5,000 per appearance, and “threaten and intimidate others” by threatening to “sue other scholars, activists and the media . . . even his own (ex) family members.”

 

Crowell concludes: 

So now we have the answer: Why aren’t recording devices allowed at Churchill’s speaking events? Because Churchill himself demands they not be allowed. This is for his own attention, for his own control, for his own personal profit, for his need to bully, and for feeding his ever-increasing yet fragile ego.

All of which gives insight into Churchill, the pseudo-Indian left-wing professor who can give lessons to anyone on how to game the university system, but equally so into this DePaul administrator and the tone of this university.