W.C. poster child for Public Education Monopoly?

Those in the “Amerika Is Awful” business operate as if continued subsidy by its taxpayer owners is a fait accompli. Wrong. When the written garbage by Mr. Churchill finally went over the edge, funding cuts to CU equal to his $116,000 annual salary were proposed. I doubt his continued claims of innocence has changed many minds.

Mr. Churchill is no different than the SuperMax prisoners who claim innocence because “six cops didn’t actually see me do the crime.” He will deny his fraudulent, ENRON-size wrong-doing with his dying, cigarette-tinged breath — because admitting the truth would bring down his phony-baloney freak show.

Should Mr. Churchill survive reviews that no employee in the private sector would ever enjoy — IMHO, there are many in Colorado who would find other areas more worthy of funding (e.g., Medicaid for the elderly, Head Start) than CU and its Ethnic Studies unit.

Privitazation of some CU areas, to relieve future financial burdens, would also be an option. Those financial burdens:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/wash...07-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm?csp=34

Rail on, Ward-o. The taxpayers could use the financial relief from a back-lash centered on your academic fakery.

Buzz, at 5:50 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Political Witchhunts

The University of Colorado has been desperately seeking to find an excuse to fire Ward Churchill, and the faculty who investigated the case (and who plainly hate Ward Churchill, for many legitimate reasons), gave Hank Brown the opening to do this. Although Brown is violating the judgment of the faculty panel about the penalty, he can claim enough support among the faculty committees to get away with it. I think the primary fault here lies with the faculty members, who pushed forward a misguided interpretation of “fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism” in order to get rid of an annoying, obnoxious, and flawed scholar who embarrassed their university and hurt its reputation. Brown’s claim that Churchill was not a victim of selective investigation and punishment is completely implausible. Unless the University of Colorado plans to systematically investigate the scholarship of all tenured professors, rather than those who attract negative public attention, it is inevitable that outspoken scholars will be subject to more scrutiny than anyone else. The fact that Brown (unlike the faculty committees) is unconcerned by this fact should disturb everyone.

If Churchill were just an average professor, I don’t think any of this would have come up. Nothing proven against Churchill appears to meet the classic definitions of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism that previously have led to punishment of faculty. So I would have objected to this expansion of the definition of punishable research misconduct even if it had nothing to do with a political witchhunt. Fundamentally, I think the best way to respond to poor scholarship and shaky reasoning by Churchill is to criticize him and expose his errors, not to try to fire people who make mistakes. The real question is, if Churchill can be fired on these grounds, there are probably thousands upon thousands of professors who have also made factual mistakes and cited sources that disagree with their conclusions. No one seriously imagines that all of these professors will be investigated, and as a result only the controversial professors will be subject to this expanded definition. Of course, we can all hope that the Colorado committee’s decision was merely an ad hoc justification to get rid of a distasteful colleague, and not a serious expression of some new approach to research misconduct. But as I have argued here (http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/05/19/wilson), the danger is that this may just be the beginning of a politicized attack on leftists by finding some flaw in their research.

John K. Wilson, at 7:00 am EDT on May 30, 2007

HANK BROWN AND JOE MCCARTHY

At the University of Colorado, the ugly head of McCarthyism is poking through the political and academic landscape. Hank Brown may think that principle is a “Paris Hilton Defense,” but many of us see his actions against academic freedom as a resurgence of a shameful time in American political and academic history when research that didn’t fit the paradigms of the current dominant discourses was stifled and even severely punished to the detriment of American society. Yes, the McCarthy era when free speech was nearly destoyed as a founding American principle, a principle that Brown now mocks as the “Paris Hilton Defense.” Shame on you Hank Brown.

When professors at Colorado are saying this: ‘the university “had vetted his stuff” before hiring and promoting him — and didn’t find any problems until there was a national political outcry about the 9/11 writings,’ one can clearly assume, after following all the arguments in the case as I have, that Brown has taken uncalled for, severe and unconscionable actions that threaten the treasured American notion of academic freedom, and has setback the reputation of the University of Colorado severely, if not permanently.

I only hope the Regents, who are responsible for protecting the stature and reputation of Colorado, do not take Brown’s recommendation. Brown has made of himself a political tool of the worst elements currently savaging our public square.

michael vocino, at 7:40 am EDT on May 30, 2007

“Of course, we can all hope that the Colorado committee’s decision was merely an ad hoc justification to get rid of a distasteful colleague, and not a serious expression of some new approach to research misconduct.”

Yes, God help us all if we are held to standards of honesty and accuracy in scholarship. You must think that such standards will result in wholesale purges. I wonder what you are seeing around you that would result in that fear.

JBM, at 7:40 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Who hired Ward Churchill?

Is there accountability in higher education?

Ward Churchill, believed at the time to be a Native American, and not the poseur he is revealed to be, was granted tenure because CU wanted to fill a quota. The academic administrator ultimately became President of Roosevelt University!

Curious George, at 8:50 am EDT on May 30, 2007

question for Mr. Kahn

Mr. Kahn, You raise a couple of interesting issues, but it is difficult to see what they are because the main stream media took away your “caps lock.” Although I don’t care about Mr. Churchill one way or the other, I think it is an overstatement to say that people that disagree with “conservative” views lose their jobs. Heck, we just had an election and the party that calls itself “liberal” one.

Moreover, people “disagree” with the main stream media all the time. Perhaps you could provide specifics about people that were terminated because they disagree with the main stream media. But, please, for the good of all humanity, I beg you not to post in all large letters.

Also, could you tell us how to recognize the “voice of reason.” It is like the “Voice of America” or the voices in my head?

Larry, at 8:55 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Just Contemplating My Navel

I have a Ph.D. in Statistics, but before that I was ABD in Mathematics (with a little research in point-set topology). But in between those two adventures, I spent the better part of three years in a College of Education and am actually ABD in Education Research and Evaluation. I tell you that because I want to establish the fact that I have paid penance to the gods of education.

In any event, I have been a fairly active participant in the discussions and debates in InsideHigherEd from the very beginning. During that time I have noticed that there is very little intellectual content herein. More often than not the debates seem to me to be very much like a bunch of Ed School profs and graduate students blasting back and forth over the Internet before their first classes of the day. Occasionally there’s something insightful, but, truthfully, not very often.

I almost always enjoy Scott McLemee’s interesting essays, but his articles are infrequent and usually inspire very little feedback. I imagine if Scott Jaschik’s office were “down the hall,” I’d like to go out for coffee with him on a regular basis.

I also think I know that IHE is supposed to be a lively alternative to the staid – frequently sleep-inducing – Chronicle of Higher Education (I subscribe to that too). All of that said, there follows my quick-and-dirty, non-scientific analysis of what is important from IHE’s perspective, with each score being the number of hits one would get if the individual’s name were typed into that little search box up there on the left ...

Lee Bollinger [President of University of Michigan and Columbia University (11 years), noted First Amendment scholar] = 15

Noam Chomsky [#1 public intellectual, linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy] = 11

Mary Sue Coleman [President of Universities of Iowa and Michigan (12 years)] = 20

Wade Churchill [writer, Vietnam vet, political activist, and academic] = 72

Richard Dawkins [#3 public intellectual, Oxford Professor of Public Understanding of Science] = 3

Umberto Eco [#2 public intellectual, writer and academic] = 3

Vaclav Havel [#4 public intellectual; playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution] = 0

Christopher Hitchens [#5 public intellectual, journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist] = 3

David Horowitz [conservative writer and activist] = 84

Margaret Spellings [Secretary of Education (3 years), author of “No Child Left Behind”] = 149

Lawrence Summers [former President of Harvard (5 years)] = 67

E.O. Wilson [Harvard Professor of Entomology, environmental advocate, scientific humanist] = 0

I will draw no conclusion other than to say this is a very strange view of what is going on inside higher education ... or at least what is important therein.

RWH, at 9:10 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Political Hacks and Higher Education

The frustrating thing about the Ward Churchill case is that it seems to bring out the worst in everyone. From the political hacks in Denver, to the mouth breathers on cable television, to the professor-hating basement-dwellers who oddly find themselves flocking to higher education websites, everyone plays her part as scripted. It’s all a big game to them, your guys against my guys.

Well, to me this is not a game. This is my career and I take it seriously. I couldn’t care less about Ward Chuchill. In fact, he seems like a bit of an idiot, but that’s not my call to make. I care about this case because I care about academic freedom, not as some abstract slogan to be batted around in pointless debates on Fox News or CNN, but as a funamental condition of my workplace.

When I hear Chuchill’s defenders adopt a knee-jerk stance of support, I am disappointed. Professor Yellow Bird and Professor Craven should know that Churchill’s violations are not trivial, and are not excused by the good work he may have done on behalf of their cause. Chuchill is discredited, and rightly so, regardless of where this case ends up.

But I am far more concerned about the effectiveness of the right-wing noise machine and its political co-conspirators. Their disingenuousness is obvious, and well represented by Hank Brown’s ludicrous invocation of Paris Hilton. For the record, Paris Hilton was never the target of a full-scale investigation by an institution of the government as a result of her notoriety. Either Mr. Brown knows this, and is insulting our intelligence, or he does not, in which case his political baggage evidently prevents his from even producing a coherent argument on his own behalf.

What Chuchill did is not all right. But what the State of Colorado is doing is worse. It is a cornerstone of the notion of due process that nobody should be subject to unusual government scrutiny or selective prosecution as a result of her constitutionally protected speech. When anyone, including Hank Brown, chips away at that cornserstone, we all become more vulnerable.

I regret that Ward Churchill has become the vehicle for this fight. He is unworthy. But anyone who knows the history of people like Ernesto Miranda knows that we cannot choose our champions. Just our principles.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 9:10 am EDT on May 30, 2007

This is academic freedom?

For too long, in my opinion, academics have managed to convince their sponsors (tax-payers and students) that academic freedom is equivalent to professional autonomy. The freedom to do shoddy work — whether in research or in the classroom — is not the same as the freedom to express views that are inconsistent with ‘management’/mainstream society. Academic freedom — itself, a good thing — should not be used to protect second-rate professionals from scrutiny.

KC, at 9:10 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Just the Facts, Sir

Jason P., if you seriously think that Ward Churchill represents all of academia, and that we must all be frauds because Ward is a fraud, then you either need to retake Logic 101, or you’re just delusional. Churchill defender Craven is quoted, “How many scholars could have their own work vetted as his was”? Well, I know I could. Churchill is the exception, not the rule.

Hoosier Prof, at 9:55 am EDT on May 30, 2007

The Churchill Hustle

Ward Churchill is a living testimony to the degradation of higher education that comes from hiring people as faculty because — BECAUSE — of their alleged group membership, not their individual talents.

The Colorado faculty ignored Churchill’s nondescript scholarship and disregarded the fact that he had no terminal degree (attesting to his failure to ever meet scholarly research standards) all because he was, or claimed to be, a Native American.

Of course, Churchill is a phony, a fraud and a charlatan. But if he is to be fired — and he should be fired for his craven lies and plagiarism — the university should identify the faculty who were on the original hiring committee back in the late 1980s and insist that one of them be fired too.

Harsh? Extra-legal? Inflammatory? Of course.

Will it ever happen? Never.

Churchill is a pathetic but sober reminder that when universities hire, retain, and promote people because of their membership in a group (racial, gender, ethnic), these farces and inanities are bound to occur.

Verily, that is the chicken that has come home to roost. If you like, support and advocate racist or gender double standards, then Ward Churchill, M.A. is your poster boy.

Chuck, at 10:30 am EDT on May 30, 2007

SWIFTBOATING CHURCHILL

It is clear from the posting of Feudi Pandola that the swiftboating of Ward Churchill is in full swing. Pandola evidently hasn’t read anything of the record of Ward Churchill, his honors, his awards, his reputation among students, etc. to stoop to the level of calling such an academic a “lousy professor.” All the facts speak differently of Ward Churchill and his record, but the BIG LIE theory is very attractive to the political right wing as Pandola’s post attests. What is fact and real is not important to people like Pandola, only name-calling, and the destruction of anyone who disagrees with their negatively retro perception of what it means to be an academic in the U.S. in the 21st Century.

michael vocino, at 10:50 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Say what?

“With his $68,000/year CU pension, Ward-o can keep looking for his American Indian heritage.”

Would Churchill draw such a pension if discharged?

JBM, at 11:05 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Reply to RWH

Reply to RWH

One or more at IHE have blinders on when evaluating humanist and public interest news articles for publication.

Perhaps the problem is the impression we leave by our number of comments.

Other names for your list of IHE neglected: Paul Kurtz, Tom Flynn, Howard Zinn, Amy Goodman, Bill Moyers and Sam Harris.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 11:35 am EDT on May 30, 2007

“I will argue that individual neo-cons or right wing conservatives seem not to be able to accept the facts of what Churchill has said or written about.”

That’s because he fabricates stuff.

JBM, at 12:15 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

Academic Freedom

The range of commentary following the Churchill article today emphasizes, beyond any ‘reasoned’ facade, that the entire process initiated following the ‘outing’ of Churchill and cancellation of his speaking engagement ‘back when’ is politically motivated, aimed at homogenizing imperial discourse, and chilling dissent and academic freedom. Bottom line, one either supports free and open discourse or one does not—committees, politicians, ‘professional organizations’, ‘academics’ notwithstanding.

In suppressing it in the academic setting, the Board of Regents/President/compliant committees/AAUP et. al. are relocating it to other cultural, social and political arenas.

(Note, for instance, the broad mobilizations of ‘immigrants’ last year.) We are increasingly becoming two nations- a nation of immigrants, and a nation of ignorance.

You, who read this now, will feel the consequences of both the suppression of free and open discourse and the polarization of the population somewhere along the line.

david, Ph.D., at 1:10 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

The Facts about Ward Churchill

Professor Vocino:

Here are the facts bubba. How do you sleep at night?

Recommendation of Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano with Regard to Investigation of Research Misconduct

June 26, 2006

Fifteen months ago, I met with you to discuss the findings of specific allegations concerning the scholarship and conduct of Professor Ward Churchill. My Committee sought to answer two primary questions raised in various allegations. First, did certain statements by Professor Churchill exceed the boundaries of protected speech? Second, was there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in other conduct that warranted further action by the University—such as research misconduct, teaching misconduct, or fraudulent misrepresentation in performing his duties?

The key findings of this review were the following:

The content and rhetoric of Professor Churchill’s essay on 9/11 and other works that we examined were protected by the First Amendment.

Allegations regarding research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication and misuse of others‘ work, had sufficient merit to warrant further inquiry, and they were referred to the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.

Questions raised about Professor Churchill’s possible misrepresentation of his ethnicity in order to gain employment advantage were reviewed, resulting in a finding of no action warranted. However, questions raised in regard to the allegation of misrepresentation of ethnicity to gain credibility and an audience for scholarship were also reviewed, and the Committee felt that such misrepresentation might constitute research misconduct and failure to meet the standards of professional integrity.

Nine allegations of research misconduct were sent to the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. The nine allegations were reviewed by an Inquiry Subcommittee, which dismissed two of the allegations because they did not fall within the definition of research misconduct. The Inquiry Committee referred the remaining seven allegations to an Investigative Committee to explore them in more detail.

Membership of the Investigative Committee included three distinguished professors from the Boulder campus and two distinguished professors from other universities. I want to publicly thank these outstanding faculty members for their time and commitment to this difficult and onerous task. The investigative Committee concluded that Professor Churchill committed research misconduct. You all have seen a copy of that previous report and can refer to it for additional detail. It is also posted on our Web site.

The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct accepted the Investigative Committee’s report on May 15, 2006, and issued its report to the provost and dean of the College of Arts & Sciences on June 13, 2006. Both the Investigative Committee and the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct recommended sanctions ranging from suspension without pay to termination.

I have carefully reviewed the Report of the Investigative Committee, Professor Churchill’s responses to the Committee, and the Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. I have met with and obtained the separate input of Provost Susan Avery and Todd Gleeson, the Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences. I met with Professor Churchill and his attorney, David Lane. After conducting the due diligence I felt was necessary, I have come to a decision regarding the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct pertaining to Professor Ward Churchill. Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado, Boulder. My issuance of this notice now triggers a process that is governed by Regents Law, Article 5.C.1 and 2 and Regents Policy 5-I.

Let me make two very important points. The first is about the integrity of the process that was used to investigate the allegations of research misconduct. Faculty members from this institution and others across the country enjoy the freedom of expression that is the foundation of what they do in their scholarly pursuits. A university is a marketplace of ideas—a place where controversy is no stranger and opinionated discourse is applauded. Indeed, one of our most cherished principles is academic freedom—the right to pursue and disseminate knowledge without threat of sanction.

But, as is true with all liberties enjoyed by all Americans, with freedom comes responsibility. Appropriately, we in the academy are held to high standards of integrity, competence and accuracy, at the same time we freely engage in spirited, unimpeded discourse in the “marketplace of ideas.” The faculty members on both Committees fully understood their duty to uphold the standards that allow them academic freedom and freedom of expression, and I applaud them for their work, their dedication, and their commitment.

Secondly, of great importance to me as chancellor is the suggestion that the University’s ethnic studies department is in some way responsible for, or deficient, because of the investigation of research misconduct of one of its faculty members. This perception is unfounded in fact, and it is a perception that the University will work to reverse in the coming months.

At no time during the work of the Inquiry and Investigative Subcommittees, or the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, has the work of the other faculty members of the ethnic studies department been called into question. As stated in the Standing Committee’s recommendation, “We have taken pains in this report to explain that the findings apply only to Professor Churchill, and should not be casually generalized to others in his department or field of study.” Indeed, the proceedings of all the Committees have been focused on the research misconduct of one faculty member only.

The Standing Committee also made some recommendations with regard to the University’s policies and procedures. We are following through on these specific recommendations.

Now, let me briefly explain the process as we go forward. Professor Churchill may request within 10 days to have President Brown or me forward this recommendation to the Faculty Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure. If Professor Churchill does so, a special panel will then conduct hearings about this matter and make a recommendation to the president about whether the grounds for dismissal are supported. The handout you received outlines more detail about this process.

Office of News Services

584 UCB • Boulder, CO 80309-0584 • 303-492-6431 • FAX: 303-492-3126 • cunews@colorado.edu

� Regents of the University of Colorado | Privacy

A University Communications site

feudi pandola, at 1:10 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

But it is widespread

Thank you, MJB. I’m reminded of another academic fraud, Leonard Jeffries, at CCNY where I once taught. Hoosier Prof, there seems to be whole areas and departments that give one cause for concern. Others have notice the problem also (see Hubert Smith above or read Martin Kramer’s “Ivy Towers in Sand.”)

Jason P, at 1:10 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

Something refreshing

” .. this limited, unfair concept of tenure ought to be done away with completely.”

Heck, yeah! Tenure terminates with financial exigency. Since the USA is really bankrupt (financially, at a minimum) ..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/wash...07-05-28-federal-budget_N.htm?csp=34

.. all tenure agreements are void.

Those producing quality outcomes (articles that don’t have to micro-checked, grants) get long-term contracts. Everyone else, including administrators, get reviewed yearly.

Buzz, at 1:45 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

The Relationship between academica and democracy

“Higher-education teaching personnel can effectively do justice to this principle [academic freedom] if the environment in which they operate is conducive, which requires a democratic atmosphere; hence the challenge for all of developing a democratic society.”

Unfortunately, in present-day imperial (that is, post-2000, or post-republic) America, we have neither an environment conducive (because of the ideologies driving the “War on Terror"-imperial hubris, religious (Ziono-Xian) fundamentalism, and good-ol-Americanism),

nor the society corresponding to [democratic] in which such intellectual/academic freedom can prosper.

DAVID ROSSI, Ph.D., at 3:30 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

Even on IHE

I would hope your moderators would post this:

Assistant or Associate Professor in Chicana and Latina Studies and Cultural Production- Tenure Track

California State University—Long Beach

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 27 2007 DUTIES: The appointee will be responsible for a normal teaching assignment, usually 12 units ... see job

Also check the Professor of “Black Psychology” classified (!???).

I REST MY CASE...

Hubert Smith, at 5:45 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

politicized investigations—and non-investigations

As I said above, I am uncomfortable that the investigation of Ward Churchill—which discovered so much disgraceful academic activity on his part, including the outright fabrication of historical events in his books—originated because of statements he made about 9/11.

But in fact I am MORE concerned about the non-investigations: those that SHOULD have occurred when the complaints about Churchill’s fabrications began to flood in to the administration at CU. But Churchill was untouchable because he (a) he claimed (falsely) to be an Indian, (b) was a radical leftists, and © had been hired and then promoted by university administrators who THEMSELVES now had to be protected from investigation of their incompetence “for the sake of the institution.” And this, for ten full years, the University of Colorado administration did—it protected the institution, and itself, and allowed a charismatic incompetent and a liar loose among the undergraduates. THAT is the real disgrace. This investigation SHOULD have occurred long ago, if CU were an honest place. The investigation is political now; the non-investigation, the ignoring of specific and serious allegations, was political THEN.

Then there’s the question of Ethnic Studies as a whole: Churchill was given tenure and then promoted to full professor, and that means he must have had positive letters of evaluation from prominent people in Ethnic Studies in two separate rounds of promotion. Yet it would take just 15 minutes on the internet, to look up “Mandan + Smallpox” to see that Churchill was just making things up!! Were the people who wrote positive letters of evaluation also incompetents? Or just politically motivated? Were they perhaps physically afraid of Churchill (he’s a big guy and he likes to threaten people, we’ve seen the tapes), or were politically afraid of him, or did they just say to themselves, that “good” politics = “acceptable scholarship"?

Whatever the answer, THAT’s another part of the REAL WARD CHURCHILL SCANDAL, which like the CU administration part, I assure the readers of this blog will NEVER get investigated.

art eckstein, professor at university of maryland, at 5:45 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

Churchill, Superpower, et al.

“Oh, yeah. Like Ward would say with usual bile, America is guilty for causing most of the world’s problems.”

Don’t know about causing most of the world’s problems, but defintely the problems in the mideast.....

Is there a ‘mideast studies program’ in academia in the country that is not a mouthpiece for the state department/the zionist establishment/the oil barons?

We are, after all, with the direct support of ‘academia’ historically:

The only (current) superpower.

The only nation to use nuclear weapons against another country.

The leading nation (in North America) to commit genocide against the native populations.

The only nation (in North America) to recognize slavery in its founding repulican constitution.

...add your item here:

“He just can’t explain why 12 million illegal aliens would risk life and limb to come to this lousy, no-good, freedom-hating country.”

Does anyone remember the ‘latin american studies’ programs of the 60’s-70’s, or the Chnicago Boys’ Chilean economic miracle-Pinochet and the end of social security in Chile?

As for the twelve million plus, the not-yet legal workers who flood our low-wage, high demand labor market-because-we-don’t-work-it economy. I think they come to try to recover the $$$$ that has been systematically drained from their home economies by our ‘free’ enterprise system...and to clean the offices of the administrators of UC. (that is, until some deputy shoots them on a bridge, or at the border, or in a parking lot, or:

add your location here:

As for the Daily Show—-well, GWB is the target of abuse on more than one frequency—have you caught any of the shock jock shows lately? Problem is, the words bounce off the emperor, (and the vice-emperor) just like they will bounce off the next emperor/empress. Comedy makes $$$, regardless of the target—although the nut right has not been able to produce a ‘funny’ anti-progressive comedy show—wonder why? Does is share some mean-spiritedness attributed to Ward Churchill?

david, Ph.D., at 8:40 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

How Much do We Know about Chruchill Case?

How many commentators here have read both the report which accuses Churchill or any rebuttal from Churchill and his attorney or supporters?

How many have READ THE JUSTICR OF ROOSTING CHICKENS or any other of Ward Churchill’s writings?

And what do we know about how Churchill’s scholarly practices compares with that of others on the faculty of his university or other institutions?

Don’t we need this kind of information in order to independently assess the case for or against Professor Churchill?

RBirt, at 9:55 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

Thanks for the comedy; move AOT

” .. As for the twelve million plus ..”

Hey, pally — I didn’t invite them. They broke into the U.S., in the middle of the night. And they can go, any time they like, vs. in Mexico where border-crossing illegals are “shot first — and often.”

Right now, I’m sitting in a McD’s, in a town formerly 99.9% Caucasian, now 12% Latino. Probably at least 80% are illegal; 10% felons in their own country; 50% illiterate in their own language; and unmarried working poor with newborns approaching 50%.

How are they surviving? Something that ninny Churchill is too pig-headed to accept: DONATIONS by rich, white Republican Christians! Like this —

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24...=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If Churchill and you think the U.S. is such a lousy country — why are you still here? Get out, for some place better, IYHO.

Or are you too smart to give up an “easy ride?”

Buzz, at 10:00 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

“They ALL do it"??? No, they don’t

Several commentators on this blog have sought to defend Churchill by claiming that his scholarly incompetence and outright lies about the past are no different from those of most professors’ work.

This is the most insidious of all the ways to defend Churchill. I utterly reject it.

I’m in a History Department of 45 people. The overwhelming majority of them are on the left, some on the far left. But I would bet anyone here a great deal of money that not ONE of my colleagues turns out trash and propaganda such as Churchill routinely does, or makes up historical facts to put in his or her book, as Churchill does, or cites not-to-be-found “oral informants” as evidence, as Churchill does. No—they are professionals. Churchill is not. And that is literally true: Churchill only has an M.A. in “Communication Arts” from a fifth-rate local college, though he offers himself as a historian. But he is not a trained historian—and Lord knows, it shows! And yet there he is, a full professor of Ethnic Studies and (up to his 9/11 gaffe) chair of a department at a major university.

The question is: how did he get there? Who in the CU administration pushed for him, signed off on his tenure, his promotion to full professor, his promotion to chair of a department? Which prominent scholars in Ethnic Studies vouched for the quality of his so-called work—TWICE? As I said—THOSE scandals will never be examined. It’s too dangerous to the entire Ethnic Studies system, and to the CU administration.

art eckstein, Professor at University of Maryland, at 11:00 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

Asked & answered — again

” .. Don’t we need this kind of information in order to independently assess the case ..”

What is needed is for newbies to actually read the posting thread. So they don’t repeat the same topic over, and over, and over ..

Only an idiot or a moron would think that in a crowd as cognitively-intense as this one, would NOT read all the reports.

We have. Again: they are FAR WORSE than anyone could imagine — outright, blatant fraud. Level of document fraud BEYOND that at ENRON.

If Mr. Ward L. Churchill, M.A. (Graphics Arts), had any options, he would have left CU. He doesn’t. His kind of scam only works once.

Even if his disgusting actions cost CU 80% of its state funding, he’d refuse to leave because this is about him and no one else. A selfish man, defending his money-making gig. Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Michael Moore would be proud.

L.L., at 8:15 am EDT on May 31, 2007

Ward’s M.A.

L.L. is of course correct: Ward’s M.A., which is his highest awarded degree, is in Graphic Arts, from a fifth-rate local collage. That is: his M.A. is in non-scholarly studio art (not Communication Arts). Well, it shows.

And, yes, lots of people on this blog HAVE read the CU Report, long and detailed though it is. That’s the problem that Churchill’s erstwhile defenders here face—other people’s knowledge of the facts.

aeckstein@comcast.net, professor at Maryland, at 9:35 am EDT on May 31, 2007

Thank you ART ECKSTEIN

I just wanted to thank Professor Eckstein for taking the time to add his perspective on the Ward Churchill Anti-Academic Freedom Case. Professor Eckstein is a columnist for David Horowitz through his FrontPageMagazine. Those of us who follow Horowitz and his columnists read the FP regularly, so we are familiar with Prof. Eckstein’s position on limiting academic freedom, but it is always good to be updated like this on what the conservative right is thinking.

michael vocino, at 10:05 am EDT on May 31, 2007

Professor Vocino link

I invite all readers of Inside Higher ED to click on the link provided in L.L. post. I found it frightening to think that this man has anything to do with the educational process. The link speaks for itself.

Feudi Pandola, at 11:15 am EDT on May 31, 2007

Free speech for me — none for thee?

” .. people should feel free to participate in these forums without the fear of being attacked in viciously personal terms ..”

So it is OK for your friends to attack — but for their targets not to respond? A one-sided debate?

Thank you. You have shown why public education should be chartered and de-monopolized.

Only the best is sustained when professional excellence is the key metric. The mediocre, the third-rate, the phonies and fakers, are exposed in a timely fashion.

L.L., Member at “Unapologically Tedious” Fan Club, at 1:45 pm EDT on May 31, 2007

Asked & answered — again& again, until it hurts

” .. On another distubing (sic) component of the discussion, the ‘indianness’ (sic) of Chruchill (sic) ..”

You have obviously not read the CU report.

The CU report reviewed this topic. To get his CU job, he claimed to be an American Indian. But two decades later, CU could NOT prove that he was or was NOT an American Indian.

If he had tried that in a private company — scammed on the affirmative action form — he would have been FIRED immediately, for dishonesty.

But then, what does honesty have to do with academia?

With 20% of ACT-takers incapable of doing college-level work, a 20% first-year drop-out rate, and less than 50% graduating within six years, no wonder many of the “unapologically tenured” won’t be identified. Logical.

A meta-site for Ward-o URLs:

http://pirateballerina.com/

A meta-site for Ward-o bull-crap:

http://www.wardchurchill.net/

L.L., at 3:55 pm EDT on May 31, 2007

Did you read the CU report?

” .. It seems some inveterate posters from over (sic) there have migrated to (sic) over (sic) here.”

If you read the CU reports as directed — you’d post less. Because others, not having to correct your obvious lack of details, would have to post less.

What is your PhD in? Not Reading Anything Non-Liberal? Excessive Verbage? Non-Editing? Higher Ed Administration? Unfortunate.

L.L., at 6:45 pm EDT on May 31, 2007

LOL.....Just in case you’d like the truth of my situation. Yes, I’ve been swiftboated by Horowitz...just like 101 others...only difference is that in addition to being socialist, i am also gay....that REALLY p!sses off the College Republicans...like my accuser...

http://michaelvocino.blogspot.com...me-is-michael-vocino-and-i-like.html

michael vocino, at 8:45 pm EDT on May 31, 2007

Craven

Craven works at a community college, doesn’t he? All they’re going to care about is whether he can teach Intro or not. He might not get a job in an econ department anywhere else with that approach, but Clark College is just across the river from Portland, OR. One could fare a lot worse in the academic job lottery.

Waldo, at 4:55 am EDT on June 1, 2007

On Why Churchill Should Stay: Tenure vs. academic freedom

First, let me state, that looking at the reports and the allegations, I think Ward Churchill should keep his job. I am against the US tenure system on principle, but support WC’s fight for academic freedom, on principle. He was already screened, he was already vetted, and he has produced.

I think Veblen scholar, Doug Dowd, puts it very well.

http://www.dougdowd.org/NewFiles/veblenmills.htm

>>The academic profession in America is the social critic’s refuge; even, in extreme cases, his foxhole—with all the limitations of such a vantage point. Although academic freedom has had an honorable career in some American colleges and universities, its career has been less than honorable in many more. As a concept and an ideal, academic freedom is barely understood, let alone supported, in the non-academic community; within academia, the notion has more frequently been identified with narrow considerations of job tenure than with creating an atmosphere in which the free pursuit of understanding might prevail. As with other freedoms, the weakness of academic freedom may be explained in part by the infrequency with which it is exercised.>>

Charles Jannuzi, at 4:55 am EDT on June 1, 2007

Not about freedom — money

” .. (I) support WC’s fight for academic freedom, on principle ..”

Freedom? Mr. M.A. (Graphics Arts) is free to do whatever he wants — this isn’t Cuba (he’d be in jail) or France (he’d be drawing pictures).

No — this is about money. Mr. M.A. (Graphics Arts) wants to be paid for his vile, disgusting, and crude tirades against the U.S. working-class.

Unfortunately, academia is theoretically supposed to be about “truth.”

And Mr. M.A. (Graphics Arts) got caught red-handed in deceptions that were better-constructed than ENRON’s.

The public isn’t paying for deceit in academia. They are trying to get competent, professional faculty. And, according to yesterday’s Public Agenda poll, they are pretty unhappy with what they are getting.

Academia has a choice: deceit or “academic freedom.” If it chooses the latter, don’t be surprised if the public withdraws its financial support and moves to privatize. They have “freedom,” too.

BTW: I’ve driven by Clark Community College in Vancouver, WA, across from Portland, OR. PDXers flee across the Columbia River to Vancouver to escape high Oregon taxes.

Buzz, at 9:25 am EDT on June 1, 2007

Churchill and History

I respect Art Eckstein and I think he is correct that most professional historians are honest and do not resort to plagiarism or fabrication of sources. However, I am not as enthusiastic a supporter of them as persons of virtue. I think the profession has, by an large, allowed acts of misconduct to get a pass from a number of persons who are generally perceived to have desirable political views. Ward Churchill for one. Michael Bellesiles for another.

The problem I have with the historians is that when confronted by an obvious case of misconduct, there is so little willingness to deal with it. The Journal of American History never repudiated Bellesiles’ worthless article, or retracted the award it won. Columbia’s history department never retracted the Bancroft Award to Bellesiles for his book, that action was finally taken by the trustees of Columbia University. Eric Foner and the other folks at Columbia who awarded the Bancroft to “Arming America” have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever even said so much as “Sorry about that!” in response to their award decision.

Many historians seem to share the views of many of Churchill’s defenders on this forum and elsewhere, that Churchill is entitled to say anything he wants because it is an exercise of academic freedom. That is missing the point — academic freedom involves speaking honestly and accurately in one’s field of expertise. Churchill has demonstrably been willfully in error,and has refused to correct it, has misused sources, and possibly committed plagiarism, among other acts. This is not an academic freedom issue. Failure to defend academic integrity makes the profession, and all academics look bad.

Again, who hired Churchill? A historian, Evelyn Hu-DeHart. Yet where are the historians protesting Churchill’s professional misconduct? I have seen very few (thank you Art Eckstein) speak out against him. The rest seem to be following the dictum that it may not be good history, but it would harm what is perceived to be a good cause, Indian rights. This is exactly what we saw in the Bellesiles case, where the noble cause was gun control.

As for the people signing the call to investigate the investigation process, let us consider these people for a moment. Like some of the Churchill supporters here, they seem to be willing to promote works of activism ahead of empirical scholarship.

Perhaps it is time for the historians to recognize that ‘usable history’ has outlived its usefulness, and that participation in identity politics is not a productive area for scholarly endeavor.

MJB, at 10:05 am EDT on June 1, 2007

The Bancroft Prize, and Eric Foner

Thanks for the kind words, MJB.

Regarding Bellesisles: At Columbia University, the Bancroft Committee is not responsible technically for awarding (or rescinding) the Prize. That is the responsibility of the Columbia Board of Trustees (in both cases). But they were the only people who can do it, so you can’t draw any conclusions about the attitude of the Dept of History at Columbia from the fact that it was the Board of Trustees who did it.

I don’t have any info on whether historians at Columbia opposed the Trustees in rescinding the Prize, but a statement from Eric Foner from 2002 (he wasn’t on the committee that awarded the Prize to Bellesisles, by the way) is not exactly supportive of Bellesisles:

“The Bancroft judges operate on a basis of trust. We assume a book published by a reputable press has gone through a process where people have checked the facts. Members of the prize committee cannot be responsible for that.”

Jon Wiener, a historian at UC Irvine, WAS supportive of Bellesisles, in a major article in The Nation.

I haven’t seen any historian being supportive of Ward Churchill as a historian, though there might be a few crazies out there. The attack on him by the CU investigative committee was led by historians and revolved around misuse of historical evidence.

art eckstein, Professor at University of Maryland, at 11:10 am EDT on June 1, 2007

Ward Churchill

Back in the days when I was a high school teacher and union rep for my building I had to defend a colleague the admin. tried to fire. I hated the guy, felt he was a terrible teacher, and that the system would be better off without him. So why did I do it? Because—unlike so much of the pious rhetoric floating around the Churchill case—there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things and the administration’s procedure was *so* wrong it could be turned on anyone for any reason.

The wrong way is what’s happening at