Todd M. Stafford: Affirm Ward Churchill's Right to Speak (Archived, 2005)

This page is an archived record of material published on ColoradoPeace.org on February 3, 2005. It is presented here as historical documentation only. Nothing below should be read as a statement of current events, present institutional positions, or ongoing availability.

Context of the Archived Letter

In early 2005, controversy surrounded remarks attributed to Ward Churchill, then a professor at the University of Colorado. The archived page reproduces a letter addressed to university leadership and signed by Todd M. Stafford, identified in the source as associated with the legal writing program at the University of Colorado School of Law. The letter was part of a collection of statements from members of the academic community.

Summary of the Letter's Argument

Stafford's letter, as preserved in the source, argued that protections for expression and for academic inquiry must extend to controversial ideas. He contended that speech at the core of First Amendment protection includes political expression, and that ideas widely accepted require no such safeguard. He further suggested that a university limited to affirming established opinion would fall short of its purpose.

The letter described Stafford's familiarity with Churchill's speaking and writing, characterizing the work as engaging and provocative. It warned that disciplinary action, censure, or formal investigation could discourage others from speaking and could harm the exchange of ideas. Stafford urged the governing board to resist public pressure and to uphold principles of expression and academic inquiry.

Historical Framing

• The document dates to February 2005 and reflects the views expressed at that time.
• References to individuals, titles, and institutions describe the 2005 context only.
• The archived page does not establish any present relationship, position, or endorsement.
• No claim is made here about current policies, personnel, or events.

Note on the Record

This entry preserves the substance of a historical advocacy letter for reference. It does not adopt its arguments as conclusions, and it makes no assertion about later developments. Readers should treat the material as a snapshot of a 2005 debate over speech and academic freedom at a public university.