Letter to the Editor: Misunderstanding surrounding the Churchill debate continues


It seems to me that if one is going to form a rebuttal to an argument, then at least a small amount of research should be conducted on the topic before that argument is made.

However, in the case of the argument established by Andrew Bennion (“Mistakes of the past do not justify terrorism,” Feb. 15), the rebuttal was written and published before the author ever read the subject matter.

Had Bennion actually read Colyn’s letter (“The real deal on the ‘Little Eichmanns’ comment,” Feb. 10), he would have directed himself to the Web site she quoted and realized that the entirety of the letter was in fact a quote from Ward Churchill, and that the only point of her letter was to show his actual words as opposed to the conjuncture from the letter (“Doctorates and strange love,” Feb. 9).

Her simple argument challenged readers to educate themselves. Instead of clarifying Churchill’s message for the interested, as was intended, Colyn was attacked by Bennion as if she had written the letter herself.

Yes Colyn, “communication is a very fragile tool,” but do not lose hope in those of us who are interested in the truth and educating ourselves for the better.

Julie Groves