It is utterly unclear why firing Mr. Churchill would have any impact whatsoever on “academic freedom” practices across the academy. The charges against him include acts that would result in outright dismissal in virtually *any* professional sphere, including law, medicine, politics, and many other areas that have their version of “tenure” (for instance, partnership, election terms, membership in a protected employment group, and so forth). Were he to work in those fields, he would most likely be dismissed with cause. Why is academic work different?

If what we care about in academe is protecting the right to speak openly and freely, even controversially, we should of course treat such cases with particular care. However, there are limits to that care — and lying, cheating, stealing work, and betraying the fundamental practices of our profession are surely among those limits. What Mr. Churchill has done — his acts of “falsification, fabrication, plagiarism", among others — go to the heart of what academic work is. They do not go to the heart of what academic *freedom* is. Indeed, they violate its principles by striking at the very core of its protected acts.

It’s high time we liberals spoke out against Mr. Churchill. If we cannot do so with conviction, we deserve to be pilloried (almost) as much as he does.

savitri, at 3:50 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

Consequences

When I first started teaching journalism more than 15 years ago, one of my broadcast students fabricated a news story. She was either too lazy or too shy to interview the people she claimed to have interviewed. The soundbites she used actually were her roommates posing as the university officials she was supposed to have contacted. Needless to say, she flunked the course automatically. She also was kicked out of the program and probably ended up picking another career. What journalism school would accept her?

Now I’m working on my EdD after years of teaching college students and was surprised that anyone needed to outline the consequences for plagiarism. Of course the rules need to be written, but professors also outline the reasons verbally for students. The consequence is severe. My graduate school doesn’t want me if I plagiarize or otherwise ignore academic standards.

How is this situation with Ward Churchill different? The university has shown Churchill enough preference. How many doctoral students would love a tenured job and a professor’s salary? It’s tough to swallow, but Churchill got the job and the salary with only a master’s degree. Early on the whole Churchill controversy, I stuck by him. He must be a great teacher. I’m sure his class discussions – even if they are controversial – are lively and engaging, exactly what students and professors enjoy most. I’m sure his students have learned more from him than any other professor.

The problem is, if he can’t follow the academic rules his students are expected to follow, he needs to look for another job. If CU doesn’t fire him, he won’t sue. If he keeps his job, the university really should consider revising the academic conduct rules for students to allow plagiarism, fabrication, and sloppy research. If there’s no consequence for the professor, why should there be one for the students?

I’m sure Churchill can find a job easily with his credentials. He could adjunct at a community college like the rest of us with master’s degrees who dream of being tenured professors. Of course the pay is less than $30K per year.

Forget the lawsuit he’ll file, CU! Fire him and show your students that academic standards matter.

Jennifer Frank, Student at Fielding Graduate University, at 4:05 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

if this isn’t a firing offense, what is?

Why isn’t this a firing offense? Because falsification of this sort is a lot more common than most social science academics want to admit. Michael Bellesiles almost got away with an equivalent (although much larger) example of falsification, and had it not been for a few pests outside the academy who forced historians to actually check his claims, he would still be a tenured professor at Emory, and his Bancroft Prize would not have been revoked.

Clayton E. Cramer, at 4:05 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

A scapegoat by any other name...

Let’s me be clear: I don’t respect many of Ward Churchill’s actions; however, he is in the trouble he’s in because conservative media and knee-jerk right wing politicans did not appreciate his comments about the victims of the 9/11 attacks. He compared them to Nazi functionaries and the Rocky Mountain News in Denver and Fox News nationally immediately launched a smear campaign. (No one recalls, particularly the editors of the Rocky Mountain News, that the day before Churchill’s comments were widely publicized, the newspaper ran an editroial supporting the First Amendment and lamenting that so many high school students actually agreed that limiting it was okay. The next day, the Rocky expressed the same view by demanding Churchill’s First Amendment rights be limited and he be sanctioned for exercising them.)

Not liking Churchill does not mean I do not support his right of free speech or his rights to academic freedom. The subsequent charges that have been leveled against him are the result of an exhaustive investigation launched AFTER his 9/11 comments were widely publicized. The zeal to destroy the man has been amazingly unAmerican and allegations under which he now finds himself are the result of a desperate need to find SOMETHING to use against him. The initial attack against him was poisonous and hence any of the supporting charges are simply fruits of the poisoned tree.

Doug, at 4:25 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

In the spirit of Ward Chruchill

It is clear, based on empirical evidence, that Professor Churchill violated many common standards of academe. What Mr. Churchill has done — his acts of “falsification, fabrication, plagiarism", among others — go to the heart of what academic work is. Harsh sanctions are not only warranted but should be demanded when tenured professors are found to have been academically dishonest. If there’s no consequence for the professor, why should there be one for the students?Falsification of this sort is a lot more common than most social science academics want to admit. I have a very long list of professors that should be gone. Let’s me be clear. In the interests of genuine academic freedom it’s vital to draw that bright line between the quality and content of scholarship, between academic dishonesty and heterodoxy.

(Apologies to all who have unknowingly contributed to the above.)

Tom McCool, at 4:55 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

For Comparison

The problem here is nothing to do with comments Churchill made about the people who died on 9/11, though some might wish to suggest that. The issue is not whether Churchill has the right to say controversial things without jeopardizing his job—he does have that right—though some people might believe that that is why this is an issue.

The problem, as LogicGuru aptly notes, is that we cannot allow proven academic dishonesty to stand unpunished. That there are those who feel alternative punishments are more appropriate is not surprising. We have seen, over the last few years, a softening of punishments for academic dishonesty (look at Ivy League policy changes of late).

I might have more compassion, in terms of sanctions, for a student just learning research techniques than I would for one on the verge of graduation, but Churchill should demand from his students better scholarship than he has apparently employed in his own work. That, alone, is enough to warrant an F for employment.

Andrew Purvis, at 5:00 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

Churchill Give True Activists a Bad Name

I read a series of detailed stories in the Denver Post last year about Mr. Churchill’s past, including issues concerning plagiarism, allegations that he falsified his ethnicity (claiming to be part Native American), and misrepresentations of scholarly sources to substantiate his own conclusions. If those are true, and if the findings of this review committee are true, then Churchill should be punished, severely. There are too many of us playing by the rules, working hard to advance progressive causes, attempting to keep a focus on the excesses of the political right in this country in a conscientious, honest, and, indeed, ethical manner to allow this travesty any daylight. Churchill’s ridiculous comments are an embarrassment to the intellectual left. However, they are not the source of his vulnerability to scrutiny. They were merely what drew attention upon him. If one is to point the finger in the most ludicrous manner imaginable, then one must stand up to scrutiny oneself. If the media and this review committee are correct in their findings, he does not have much moral grounding on which to stand, and it is for that that he should be condemned.

Nevertheless, I would attempt to exercize some compassion. If Churchill were willing to publicly express contrition, not for his political views but for his ethical lapses, then a punishment of two to five years suspension without pay seems just. If he is not willing to face up to what he has done and instead continues to hide behind his perceived status as a victim, then he should be dismissed permanently.

CML, at 5:45 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

Admiration

You have to admire a guy as corrupt as Churchill. He defended himself before the UC Committee regarding plagiarism charges by revealing that he had ghostwritten two articles that had text similar to his own.

They then discovered he had used those two articles as citations, providing evidence of scholarly agreement for his positions, effectively citing himself in a circle of wondrous invention.

Brian Gratton, Professor at Arizona State University, at 6:05 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

The point Doug makes about a smear campaign against Ward Churchill is well taken by anyone who follows news here in Denver. Every day since the Little Eichmanns controversy began, Ward Churchill has been in the news to the point where I completely agree with Doug that there has been a right-wing smear campaign against him. Doug and I both work in higher ed in the Denver area and he is right that at times the news about Churchill seemed more like a witch hunt. Don’t believe me? Visit any of Denver’s local media and search for Churchill. The sheer number of stories about him is shocking.

What I found more shocking in that initial controversial article was that Churchill used the word m*****f***** further down, past the Eichmann comment. Frankly, the article was so poorly written, it was hard to get past the Eichmann comment. I, too, stand by Churchill’s right to voice his opinion about 9/11, even if I think it was crude and insensitive. As an academic, however, I am far more offended that anyone with a college degree can’t think of a better word to use than m*****f*****. His use of THAT word should have been what sparked this whole investigation into Churchill’s academic integrity.

Jennifer, Student, at 6:35 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

If Your Witch Hunt Bags a Witch, It’s Still a Witch Hunt

It’s not easy to defend Ward Churchill, so I don’t intend to. If he leaves Colorado, it will be no loss to the academy. He’s an embarrassment. But make no mistake: to the culture warriors on the right, Ward Churchill was simply the appetizer, the low hanging fruit that gets plucked first.

Now they’ve set a precedent. On the basis of stupid and offensive, but constitutionally protected, remarks, they were able to browbeat the University of Colorado into doing an unprecedented, exhaustive review of Churchill’s entire career. And they hit paydirt. Anyone who thinks they will stop now simply hasn’t been paying attention. This was never about Ward Churchill.

How many people could they destroy through this kind of politically-motivated investigation? Who knows? Very few people are so squeaky clean that they could survive such an inquisition unscathed. Missed a footnote? Had an affair? Used the office computer to update your fantasy baseball team? Taken home a few pens? Sent an email that could somehow be deemed inappropriate. Let the fun begin!

It will never get that far, you say? Maybe you’re right. But I know that the next left winger who wants to say something controversial will think twice. And then think again. For some of you on this comment thread, I’m sure that would be a delightful result. Your only interest in the academy is in its destruction, or at least the destruction of its intellectual independence. But for the rest of you, leave aside your feelings about Chruchill for a moment and understand this for what it is and for what it portends for academic freedom.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 7:25 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

Reality Check

The conclusions of the investigative committee that examined seven allegations of research misconduct against University of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill: Charge A: That Churchill misrepresented the General Allotment Act of 1887 in his writings by incorrectly writing that it created a “blood quantum” standard that allowed tribes to admit members only if they had at least half native blood. Finding: Falsification, failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications. Charge B: That Churchill misrepresented the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 by incorrectly writing that the act imposed a “blood quantum” requiring artists to prove they were one-quarter Indian by blood. Finding: Falsification, failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications. Charge C: That Churchill incorrectly claimed there was “some pretty strong circumstantial evidence” that Capt. John Smith introduced smallpox among the Wampanoag Indians between 1614-1618. Finding: Falsification and fabrication. Charge D: That in several writings Churchill falsely accused the U.S. Army of committing genocide by distributing blankets infested with smallpox to Mandan Indians in the Upper Missouri River Valley in 1837. Finding: Falsification, fabrication, failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications, and serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research. The committee also found that Churchill was “disrespectful of Indian oral tradition.” Charge E: That Churchill claimed as his own work a 1972 pamphlet about a water-diversion scheme in Canada titled “The Water Plot.” The work actually was written by a now-defunct environmental group, “Dam the Dams.” Finding: Plagiarism. Charge F: That Churchill plagiarized part of an essay written by Rebecca L. Robbins in a book he published in 1993. Finding: Research misconduct Charge G: That Churchill plagiarized the writings of Canadian professor Fay G. Cohen in a 1992 essay. Finding: Plagiarism. Source: University of Colorado report of the investigative committee.

Churchill plagiarized and fabricated evidence. He is a fraud. There is nothing to talk about.

Mike, at 8:55 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

A blow against academic freedom?

Hardly. If a burglar sneaks into a house at night and lets loose a sneeze, thereby revealing himself, tough luck for him. He can’t claim that his right to sneeze freely also grants him the right to continue burgling unmolested.

Remember Nick “Million Mogadishus” de Genova? Not having committed fraud or plagiarism, he’s free to blow hot air to his heart’s content in perfect tenured safety.

Rose Nunez, at 9:40 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

I haven’t really seen or heard enough with specifics to allow me to judge whether Churchill did or did not commit authentic academic fraud. I’m open to considering the possibility that he might have violated professional academic standards. I certainly would support a full-fledged review and investigation of academic honesty. In fact I remember that Deborah Lipstadt was teaching a course from Binjamin Wilkomirski’s Fragments: Memories of a Childhood 1939-1948. When it turned out that Wilkomirski was born and grew up in Switzerland without ever getting close to Auschwitz, Lipstadt made the comment that teaching a course with a phony pack of lies as a text “might complicate matters somewhat.” If a thorough investigation and sacking of major frauds like Lipstadt could first be done then I’d be very open to seeing what evidence can be produced against Ward Churchill. In the meantime, until that’s done, then I have to conclude that this Churchill scandal is mainly just another con game worked up because Churchill didn’t tow the line completely enough.

Patrick McNally, at 10:30 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

Jeff,

I totally cross-posted with you. Thanks for saying in 100 words what I couldn’t convey in 1,000!

savitri, at 10:35 pm EDT on May 16, 2006

I’m waiting for Art Eckstein to call for a comprehensive examination of how Doris Kearns Goodwin http://www.slate.com/?id=2061056got to teach at Harvard and join its Board of Overseers.

[ANSWER: c, an investigation is indeed warrented of how Kearns the plagiarist—after her plagiarism was discovered—got to teach at Harvard and even join the Board of Overseers. She also appears reguarly on PBS, as a commentator on especially important, “historical” events. Amazing. Joe Ellis sometimes appears on PBS in a similar venue, Ellis who for a decade falsely claimed to his students—in a course he taught on the Vietnam War—that he had fought in Vietnam.

And surely Stephen Ambrose’s tenure deserves a comprehensive investigation too.

[Answer: c, Ambrose is dead, the plagiarism wasn’t discovered until after he had retired from teaching, and he wasn’t teaching at a major research university such as Colorado. In Churchill’s case, by contrast, that he was an academic fraud was well known among faculty on the Colorado campus a decade ago: I have an eyewitness to that (see my original comment.) In addition, the administration knew from at least 1996 that the most serious accusations had been made in public about Churchill’s scholarship: that didn’t stop his promotion to full professor and his being elevated to chair his department. This suggests, perhaps, an interesting administrative attitude at Colorado towards Ethnic Studies.]

Incidentally the report is outhttp://www.colorado.edu/news/repo.../download/WardChurchillReport.pdffor those of you wh want to make up your own min

Art Eckstein

arthur eckstein, professor, at 4:35 am EDT on May 17, 2006

Ward Churchill

Here’s a spin for you. What if we were to view Churchill on someone whose views mimic the political right? One of the amazing things I find about Churchill’s Scholarship is it’s sometimes frightening similarity to the backlash politics of the New Right. What I mean to say is that in terms of tone, it would seem that his engagement with Ethnic Studies, and more specifically Native Studies, Churchill takes a part in comes from a moment in which to look back on the politics of a certain moment is to give it roots, and to claim, and in Churchill’s claim, attack inauthenticity only to resurrect it in the name of political currency. I have heard Native Studies scholars for years bemoan Churchill’s position within the academy, and I picked this up as an undergrad reading the newspaper, and attending a conference or two. Native scholars, it seemed, listened to him prattle on though and tried to do what they could to expose him as a fraud. What is disappointing about the reactions of more prominent Native politicos in Washington is that they did not attack his comments in this now infamous article. His remarks were truly offensive. However, those who responded only mentioned that Churchill had faked some Cherokee ancestry, they only distanced themselves in the way that they have been doing for years. That too, rings to my ears of backlash politics, but of the left-to-center in need of drawing a more definitive line between a set of commonly held political views. It’s as if within Churchill’s scholarship—marked by the emphasis on the first decade and a half of Native Studies scholarship— that he is critical of the Traditional Conservative Right in the same way that New Right organized itself around issues of home and morality, in order to get the numbers it needed to form it’s political machine. Churchill has making a really specious (sp?) comment about cultural politics since the end of WWII, anybody who does not see that is either fooling themselves or doesn’t want to risk seriously criticizing what he has said on it’s merits. Churchill has long made arguments accusing Zionists of ethnic nationalism, but he’s taken it a step further here by accusing Americans to allow the Bush administration to continue to use 9/11 as a pre-text for a war in Iraq. But at the same time he has never withdrawn the arguement he’s made in a round about way inside cultural studies. In a sentence: that few U.S. intellectuals do not take more seriously the idea of bringing charges against the U.S. for crime against humanity when it comes to the atrocities committed in the past two centuries. But, of course, he does not say that outright. That is left hanging in the air if you are a person who follows these arguements No. He find it more timely to accuse this administration of it’s wrongs, without the political infracture that would proceed real political debate and thought. And it is the timing of the comment, that way that he takes advantage of the political climate that is really insidious. It’s like he’s the perfect bait, and he knows it, and thinks it’s cool to use whatever tactics will suffice for the moment. He’s emboldened by all of it. It’s almost like a possessive investment in “Indianness". What I mean by that is: Here is a man who attacks issues of Blood Quantum because he can’t get enrolled, or can only claim an honorary enrollment as a mixed-blood, taking advantage of a very serious issue in Indian country. Then he uses the ambiguity of his identity to as a polical platform to attack Blood Quantum issues, along with his knowledge of those atrocities committed against Native people in the U.S. and Canada to charge himself with speaking on behalf of Native issues, extolling a set of political virtues and setting out themes many on the left would be hard pressed to disagree with, and will resist any arguments made by the right. Moreover, he exploits those tensions yet again by writing another book basically accusing (if only tacitly) Native scholars for not positioning themselves more strongly against the current administration in order to polarize the issue so he can play the visible middle against the less than talked about issues that tend to the Left that claim the time and energy of Ethnic Studies and Native Studies scholars. What should be telling about all this is that the majority of Native Studies and Ethnic Studies scholars have not come to the aid of Ward Churchill, that I can tell. That he is up for suspension is sort of a sign of the times. He ought be up for suspension. He probably have been suspended long ago, and/or fired. But, the Right has found it’s man in Churchill. That they can make other feel afraid of him is probably more of an older racial construction of “The Indian” : As long as he can claim, to be persecuted for his political beliefs and his Indigenous heritage and also claim that others have not risen to the challenge of either making those same claims and/or not supporting him, he will to continue to take to his advantage of his position. So, he plays to the sympathy and the apathy of the Nation making statements that make less than sense, and have no political reasoning other than to bait a country that is deeply apathetic, and at times overly sympathetic. It will be interesting to see what happens if he does get suspended. Do people think he will really go away? Take this on the nose and leave? Will we continue to make this a Ward Churchill issue, or an issue that is facing the nation in terms of academic honesty and academic freedom?

Martha, at 4:40 am EDT on May 17, 2006

Ward Churchill

Some of Churchill’s defenders have attempted to excuse his now-documented academic shortcomings, by arguing that the findings of the board are the result of a so-called witch hunt or right-wing smear campaign and are thus irrelevant. Others have brought up Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose in an attempt to imply some sort of double standard. These individuals miss the point entirely.

What Churchill’s defenders don’t seem to grasp is that this investigation has resulted in two things: 1)Churchill has been revealed to be the stereotypical embodiment of everything that right-wing critics of the modern academy detest—a low-level intellectual who gains lifetime employment based upon his political leanings and his (now-questionable) ethnicity rather than the quality of his scholarship; and 2)it has unfortunately called into question the entire process by which CU grants tenure. Despite being the home of 4 Nobel Prize recipients and a MacArthur Fellowship winner, the university is largely known for its recent rape scandal and rep as a party school, not the quality of its academics. Having an albatross like Churchill around its neck is the last thing the university needs to shore up its image in a state that already views CU, and the city of Boulder that it resides in, as a haven for loopy, unserious left-wingers.

That this investigation resulted from a debate over free speech is unfortunate, but that does not diminish one iota the fact that Churchill abused his position as a scholar and professor at the expense of both his reputation and the university he works for. Furthermore, his complete lack of remorse and threats to sue if he is fired show that he is far more interested in preserving himself than the institutions which form the foundation of academic scholarship.

This was no witch hunt or smear job, folks. The university would not have undertaken this investigation without good reason, and regardless of complaints about coverage by the Rocky Mountain News, the board found the same examples of academic fraud that the reporters did. Does that make it a smear job, or good investigative journalism? The Rocky investigated Churchill because he became a prominent local story, not because they were looking to pick a fight with a random activist. Just because Churchill didn’t start the fire, does that make him any less responsible for putting the wood in the fireplace?

Chris McCune, at 4:40 am EDT on May 17, 2006

the conservatives salivating over the chance to declare a win in this long-running battle with the left (going back way before this 9/11 controversy with ward) seem pathetic to me for all their self-righteous dribble about standards and principles. and not a word about fox news’ journalistic standards...but it’s the liberals here, earnestly indicting the good professor in hopes of distancing him from the ‘legitimate left,’ that i feel the most revulsion towards. i read maybe half the comments before getting sick of the venomous diatribes and self-serving naivete. i wonder how many of the commentators know the details of offenses he is alleged to have committed, or read any of his remarkably compelling periodic rebuttals to the charges, which seem to pile up further as he and his wife rebut them one at a time.

the man has written dozens of authoritative works on everything from hidden government campaigns aimed at destroying popular movements to historical chronicles in which he himself played important roles. he is supported in his position by a constellation of intellectuals who enjoy the highest places in american academia. that’s why he doesn’t need a pinche doctorate. do you really think hollywood stars who get honorary law degrees during commencement season are more qualified than people who have lived through and helped define history? given ward’s record of principled opposition to everything the US political and cultural system is built on, stands for, and continues its global pillage with, it’s no surprise that so many organs of the right have come out so strongly to pillory him for these supposedly ‘deliberate’ affronts. and the wide-eyed liberals here and elsewhere, ignorant as ever, just like the democrats when threatened with being called unpatriotic for not supporting illegal wars, all fall into line, like good little germans. little eichmanns if you prefer.

another day, another successful psyops operation, another effective dissenter (almost) silenced.

alex, ethnic stud, at 4:40 am EDT on May 17, 2006

David Horowitz and the Rocky

The sum of the comments thus far correctly point to the Rocky and the 9/11 slur as the motivators for the Churchill investigation.

The results speak for themselves.

The left is also upset because the right has a win. The way to win is by intellectual honesty on the left and the right, not fraud. All people, particularly the CU administration that did not prevent or detect this guy on their own, need to learn the value of intellectual honesty.

And, David Horowitz and his 101 Professors book need to be taken seriously.

You will know when that happens when more professors are investigated.

William Sumner Scott, J.D.

Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.

wss@jefound.org

William Sumner Scott, at 9:25 am EDT on May 17, 2006

Churchill

Somewhere out there must be a bright, hardworking Native American born and raised on a reservation, with a PHD who would make CU and Colorado proud. Find her/him and give them Churchill’s job.

Steve, at 11:00 am EDT on May 17, 2006

Churchill actions

In reading the article and the findings of the Committee, there is only one option and that is, FIRE HIM. Let’s see if he is a man true to his word as to court action. A TRUE First American would admit his/her wrong doing and leave it as a lesson learned; this one, (Churchill) a fake, I think not. . .

George, Dismissal Warranted, at 11:15 am EDT on May 17, 2006

someone else

Someone else named Larry made the comment at 4:05. I tend to think the opposite: most student that plagiarize get away with it. Most professors that plagiarize are sophisticated enough to make it seem okay. (But I am not commenting on this case.)

Larry, at 12:30 pm EDT on May 17, 2006

Controversy gets you thinking

Believe it or not, I was oblivious of this whole Ward Churchill soap opera until Inside HigherEd sent me an advertisement to read their article about the sanctions against him. So the first thing I read from a link within the HigherEd report was Churchill’s comments on 9/11. He may be a fraud academically, but, um, I found his article very interesting—just the kind of writing and arguing that would engage students. And I don’t think he’s a bad writer. I think he’s a very good writer, the word “motherfucker” (gasp) and all. The rest of the drama I’ll not comment on since I’m looking at this from the outside in.

Clueless, at 5:40 pm EDT on May 17, 2006

I can’t believe that I’m sitting here reading academics justifying the continued employment of this man, excusing his plagiarism and shoddy scholarship just because so-and-so at Harvard did it and got away with it.

Find a better poster-boy than this fraudulent blabbermouth, one who hasn’t violated the ethics guidelines of his institution. And try to develop your rhetoric past “but he did it too!”

I must say, it seems the left-wing has suddenly reversed it’s position on ridiculous Indian school mascots.

Chief Running Mouth, St. Ambrose Uni., at 5:35 am EDT on May 18, 2006

Read the report then

“It’s interesting that in all the gas above I have not seen one fact or example backing the allegations.”

So you are admitting that you didn’t bother to read the 124-page report? Why?

JBM, at 7:50 am EDT on May 18, 2006

Cmon people, if a student did half as much as Ward Churchill did they would be flunked out.

What sort of example is CU setting for students by saying that Academic misconduct is ok if you have tenure. This has nothing to do with what Churchill said, and everything to do with what Churchill has done.

Market Participant, at 4:05 pm EDT on May 18, 2006

The comments on this list are like a reverberation chamber, once one rumor starts it bounces off endless walls to echo half way round the world. Similar to what the CIA does: blowback, where they write disinformation in the foreign press so that it will be picked up by the US media as “news". Anyway, whatever the facts of Churchill’s scholarship, it would seem that the commentors on this list would like to downplay the fact that Europeands did in fact commit genocide not only in North America, but carried out a plunder across the entire world from which many nations still suffer today. For the record, I do not agree with Churchill on his theory that 911 was carried out by Muslim freedom fighters (as he properly characterized them, and the distortion of his theories and ad hominem comments, and editorials at this site are despicable), but 911 was clearly an “inside job". See: David Ray Griffin; Charlie Sheen!

On the matter of scholarship, where are all the scholars as the world goes down the tubes? Answer: self absorbed with their brilliant minds and egos, getting paychecks from the War Machine and related industries. I was on an environmental history list awhile back, the comments on that list were so lame, tame and uninteresting, and to tell the truth, quite dishonest in many cases. Apart from a small percentage of activist scholars that I encountered, I found the entire project pathetic (and those are the liberals)!

As for the “right wing” and “conservatives” one can easily come across on this and other loud mouth liar lists, these folks are so vicious and ignorant that it hurts.

RIck, at 5:10 am EDT on May 20, 2006