May 29, 2007

The Ward Churchill Endgame

When a faculty panel at the University of Colorado at Boulder last year found Ward Churchill guilty of repeated and intentional instances of research misconduct, the committee included in its report a metaphor for the way many people view the Churchill case:

Looking for a job?

See all 272 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,511
Administrative: 2,211
Executive: 194
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Hank Brown, president of the University of Colorado System, gave his answer on Friday and it’s clear that to Brown, speeding is speeding. He formally recommended that Churchill, who has tenure as an ethnic studies professor at Boulder, be fired. In a detailed letter to the Board of Regents, Brown said that Churchill’s violations of academic research norms were too serious and too numerous to ignore — regardless of the circumstances that led to all the scrutiny.

Brown emphatically rejected the idea that First Amendment issues were raised because the inquiries into Churchill started after his comments about 9/11. Brown noted that more than 25 faculty members were involved in formal reviews of a series of research misconduct charges against Churchill, that none of the charges had anything to do with Churchill’s views, and that “each faculty member, without exception, determined that Professor Churchill engaged in deliberate and repeated research misconduct.”

In this context, Brown said it would be wrong to give Churchill a pass because the 9/11 remarks led people to file complaints against him. “The university cannot disregard allegations of serious research misconduct simply because the allegations were made against a professor whose comments have attracted a high degree of public attention,” Brown wrote to the regents. “The prohibition against research misconduct extends to all faculty members, irrespective of their academic disciplines or political views. Were it otherwise, the university could not maintain the integrity of the scholarly enterprise.”

Brown concluded his letter to the regents by saying that Churchill deserved to be fired because the research misconduct charges on which he was found guilty were “severe,” “deliberate” and that “Professor Churchill’s misconduct seriously impacts the university’s academic reputation and the reputations of its faculty.”

Churchill, who has threatened to sue the university if he is fired, issued a statement Monday in which he said that the central issue in the case was his politics. He noted that he had been hired, tenured and promoted based on the scholarly record that could now cost him his job. “Everyone agrees that this ‘investigation’ would not have occurred but for my First Amendment-protected speech,” he said. “To use minor factual disagreements, citation of ghostwritten material, and editors’ errors as the pretext for firing me simply illustrates that the administrators of the University of Colorado take political and financial pressures far more seriously than academic freedom or the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech, equal protection and due process.”

David Lane, Churchill’s lawyer, issued his own statement in which he said that due process had been denied to his client in a “witch hunt.”

While it has taken multiple committee reviews for Brown to have the right under the University of Colorado rules to seek Churchill’s dismissal, the process still has more steps. First, a systemwide faculty committee will take a look at Brown’s analysis and respond within 15 days. Brown is bound to give that panel a chance at persuading him to change his mind, but he can go ahead without that committee’s blessing. Brown could unilaterally impose punishments that fall short of dismissal, but to fire, he would have to make another recommendation to the Board of Regents, at which point Churchill would be entitled to a private hearing with the board, which would then take a public vote on whether to fire him. Churchill is widely expected to lose that vote, which, given various timing issues, would probably take place in July.

Churchill has been an outspoken writer and lecturer for decades, focusing primarily on Native American issues. But until early in 2005, he was not widely known outside the political circles that generally applauded his views. But when he accepted an invitation to speak at Hamilton College, some at the college started to circulate some of his writings, in particular an essay he wrote after 9/11 comparing those who died in the World Trade Center to “little Eichmanns.”

The response was fast and furious. Hamilton called off the lecture when it received threats of violence. Almost immediately, politicians in Colorado called for Churchill to be fired — and complaints started to arrive suggesting that some of Churchill’s writings were plagiarized and that some writings cited other scholars’ work in ways that distorted their findings. In March of 2005, a panel at Boulder determined that the Constitution and traditions of academic freedom protect Churchill such that he could not lose his tenure for his 9/11 writings. But Boulder also announced that there were enough serious allegations of research misconduct — some of which were serious enough to justify dismissal if they were accurate — that a new inquiry was needed.

That led to last year’s report, which found instances of plagiarism, fabrication and falsifications. Churchill has repeatedly said that political issues motivate his critics, and he repeated that charge Monday, charging that Brown and other Colorado officials are supporters of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a group that pushes for more traditional curriculum and which was founded, Churchill noted, by Lynne Cheney. In many instances, however, the scholars who brought the research misconduct charges against Churchill and said that he distorted or copied their work were people who share his critique of American treatment of Indians and who work in ethnic studies — hardly a hotbed of ACTA members.

The five faculty members on the panel last year were unanimous in finding Churchill guilty of most of the charges against him, but they split on the issue of punishment. One member suggested that Churchill be fired, despite his status as a tenured professor. Two recommended that he be suspended for five years without pay. And two recommended that he be suspended for two years without pay. But the two panel members who would prefer a five-year suspension said that they — like the panel member who favors firing — would find revocation of tenure and dismissal to be “not an improper sanction” for Churchill, given the seriousness of the findings.

From there, the issue went to a systemwide faculty committee, which voted 3-2 to recommend that Brown seek to suspend and demote Churchill, but not to fire him. With Brown’s decision pending, Churchill support groups have been trying to make the debate one of academic freedom issues, not misconduct, and they have attracted some well known scholars to the cause. They have also filed their own misconduct charges against the faculty panel that considered the allegations against Churchill.

Throughout the debates over Churchill, Colorado administrators have taken care to stress the faculty role in the reviews of his work. Administrators also want to avoid any characterization of Brown’s recommendations as going against the faculty’s views. In a discussion with Brown’s spokeswoman Monday about the systemwide faculty panel’s recommendation, when this reporter said that the panel had recommended against dismissal, the spokeswoman said that it would be correct to say only that the faculty panel “was divided.”

She added that Brown valued the faculty input on the case. “I think he’s taking it very seriously, and reviewed all of the findings from the investigative reports, and the bottom line is that we need to hold our faculty to standards, and if a professor falls below the standards, there needs to be sanctions.” In fact, the only disagreements Brown noted with the committees are that he considered as serious misconduct two charges on which the committee cleared Churchill.

Even as the Churchill review winds down (or prepares to shift from the university to the courts), at least one legacy is clear: It will change the way misconduct allegations are reviewed. The earliest Churchill could be fired would be about two and a half years after the allegations were brought. Panels appointed by Brown have come up with new procedures (not used in the Churchill case) that would streamline the process to about six months.

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

two years = good

Given how highly politized this case was from the beginning, the fact that the process has taken two years is a good thing. Enough time is a bulwark against the worst, sudden and irrational witch-hunt tendencies.

Tomas, at 5:40 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Fact is, the Colorado system is dominated by some pretty conservative viewpoints among its key policymakers. I left it in 1998, but was immediately struck by this. Of course the panel was looking at the “bumper sticker", Churchill’s politics. However I doubt his misdemeanours (shared with several other prominent intellectuals, notably one who writes on Los Angeles and environmental issues) would get him fired at less politically charged Universities (remember what Colorado did to the professor who did ethnographic research with Coors employees critical of their employer, after Coors gave the University a call...).

QUestion is: why would he stay in Boulder? It is a small town.

SP, at 6:10 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Clearly the U.C. Faculty Never Studied Law Proceedure

Now I know all PhDs are JDs, but some things are common knowledge. People should know something is amiss when they hear:

“If a police officer doesn’t like the bumper sticker on a driver’s car and so stops the driver for speeding, is a ticket justified as long as the driver was really speeding?”

Anyone who wants due process in the courts (and if you don’t know much about court history or process — you DO) should be up in arms about this statement. Yes, if you stop someone for something that is not illegal, under the pretense that it is illegal, and then you find something illegal, a court will throw that out nine times out of ten. We might as well assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent — hey, that’s tenure! (Maybe not, but there is a similarity, to a degree).

There are so many questions about the validity of people’s scholarship, and usually when people (i.e. the faculty), have an ax to grind. If we started investigating the claims of people like Lynn White who argues Christianity was the “death of nature,” or look at the absurd prose of post-moderns from the 1990s, I think that there are a lot of people who would find such work unnacceptable or even egregriously obtuse, illogical, wrong, overly political and non-academic, etc.. If someone gets past tenure, is widely read and cited (at least until the incident), then we should put our bias down. While he was hired because of the politically correct nature of the academy, they are only living up to the standard that hires and fires are politically, not genuinely academically, motivated.

Shame on the University of Colorado for such a horrific illogical statement — “if pulled over for something not illegal, but illegality is found, then the person is guilty” — that would get any judge in trouble; and shame on the University of Colorado for hiring and firing a man for political correctness.

Concerned, Thankfully not U.C., at 6:20 am EDT on May 29, 2007

fixing the metaphor

I am quite pleased to see the ward Churchill chat beginning again. Strangely, on this memorial day, I was thinking of him (since he is a veteran and all), and realized that he had not been dominating the internet for quite some time.

Concerned, I wouldn’t get any judge in “trouble” because most judges have the equivalent of tenure. It *might* get them reversed. But, even in jurisdictions with retention elections, making such a mistake wouldn’t “get them in trouble.” In fact, in the federal courts (and amongst the state courts) there is actually a circuit split as to whether probable caused based on the cop’s mistaken view of the law vitiates the probable cause, the stop, and all the other fruits of the poisonous tree. United States v. McDonald, 453 F.3d 958, 961-62 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding stop invalid where statute did not proscribe defendant’s use of the turn signal); United States v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271, 1277-80 (11th Cir. 2003) (finding no reasonable suspicion where applicable code did not require inside rear-view mirrors). On the other hand, see United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998, 1001 (8th Cir. 2005) ("in mistake cases the question is simply whether the mistake, whether of law or fact, was an objectively reasonable one".) Even in the 8th Circuit, the bumper sticker hypothetical would fail, because no “objectively” reasonable cop could objectively think that a bumper sticker that says “Fire Ward Churchill” or “The War in Iraq is Virtuous” was a crime. (And, in case you wonder “objectively” reasonable in legal world means “what the court thinks is reasonable” not “what the personally really thought at the time.”)

On the other hand, viewing a car speeding, is, itself probable cause to stop someone for speeding. And, a stopped car won’t itself be speeding.

Larry, at 7:30 am EDT on May 29, 2007

I can’t get over the need to defend Churchill’s fraud: Commit any massive fraud, then make outlandish political statements in public, and you are innoculated from any accountability for the massive fraud? Sweet!

What is going on in the schools that people are now actually defending open fabrication and deception — even claiming the constitutional right to immunity from sanctions for such malfeasance? What are the defenders themselves doing that compels them to their defense? And academics wonder why the public has serious questions about academics?

JBM, at 7:55 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Going To Bat For Ward Churchill

I wrote this ten months ago, but it has been sitting there gathering electrons ev er since. It’s time for the truth about THE MAN!

From the sheer volume of words, it would appear that the best thing to happen to InsideHigherEd to date is the Ward Churchill affair. See that “Search” window over there on the upper-left? Type in “Ward Churchill,” hit return, and you will get 59 results altogether, 7 news reports, 20 essays in which his name is mentioned, and 32 full-fledged articles. Type in “David Horowitz,” and you will get 63 reports. “Larry Summers” will produce a paltry 25. So we know where the action is in higher education today; not at Harvard, but at the University of Colorado.

Everyone who has read the IHE news reports and essays knows there are two kind of people in this world. First, the Type As are a collection of academics and a surprising number of just regular Josephines who shake their fists and shout, “That guy has been professionally dishonest, he has lied about his heritage, and he is downright unpatriotic … give him the ax!” Then there are the type Bs, mostly academics, who whine “Wait just a minute. I can’t condone what this guy has done, but there are First Amendment rights and principles of academic freedom that cannot be ignored. We should not rush to judgment in this case.”

What is humorous, ironic, bizarre, outrageous — you pick the adjective — is that the Type As are pointing their collective finger at the Type Bs and accusing them of being left-wing Ward Churchill supporters who, if David Horowitz cannot “out” them, will be the downfall of higher education in America … and, as we all know, our system of higher education is the envy of the rest of the world.

The purpose of this essay is to announce my coming out of the closet in support of Professor Churchill. I refuse to be one of those insipid, mamby-pamby, wimpy, girly Type Bs. Indeed, I am proud to say I am a died-in-the-wool, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, ultra left-wing supporter of THE MAN. Please let me explain.

Ward Churchill was born in a log cabin in Elmwood, Illinois in 1947. He walked five miles — uphill in both directions — to a one-room, clapboard schoolhouse heated by a potbelly stove, and he studied his lessons at home by the light of the fireplace, often with an empty stomach. Oops, maybe not. But he was born in Elmwood, was a relatively bright young man, and while growing up in that tiny town that doesn’t even warrant a dot on MapQuest, had been told these fanciful tales about his Indian heritage … and he does sort of look like he’s got some Indian blood — I know, I know, cut me some slack on that one — so he started passing himself off as part Indian.

According to the “Rocky Mountain News” (June 8, 2005), he claims to be 1/16th or 3/16ths Cherokee on his mother’s side and have a Creek heritage on his father’s side. So you see, he has worked it all out to his own satisfaction. And you know how it is … once you’ve told a whopper like that it seems to have a life of its own. Soon it appeared to be in everyone’s best interest to accept Churchill’s story at face value and move on. What? … you didn’t see “Mona Lisa Smile?”

I have a friend on the faculty of the Wharton School who routinely fills out questionnaire items — even the U.S. census — by claiming to be Inuit, even though he was born and raised south of the Mason-Dixon Line and looks quite a bit like Che Guevara. But I digress.

Young Ward was drafted into the Army and did his tour of duty in Vietnam. There, although he was apparently a projectionist and a driver of light trucks, he told his pals back home — and maybe a few others — that he went to paratrooper school and served on long range reconnaissance patrols to track down North Vietnamese. I mean who wants to boast, “I spent my time in Nam threading film into a movie projector?”

It was P.T. Barnum, I think, who said, “More persons, on the whole, are humbugged by believing in nothing, than by believing too much.” While in high school and college I hitchhiked all over the country, and I routinely told those who were kind enough to give me a lift the most outlandish lies. Indeed, I thought it was my responsibility to entertain those folks by being more than I actually was. Oops, I’m digressing again.

When young Ward’s tour of duty was over, it was probably not fate that directed him to Sangamon State University (now the University of Illinois at Springfield). My thesis necessitates your knowing something about SSU back in those days, so at some point you should (1) go to the IHE essay, Colorado Moves to Fire Churchill,” June 27, 2006 and read the posts titled “I Love to Gossip” and “Sorry to be a Pest” by the always verbose RWH and (2) read From ‘Radical University’ to Handmaiden of the Corporate State,” a brief history of Sangamon State by Ron Sakolsky and Dennis Fox.

A friend of mine who matriculated at SSU concurrently with Churchill described the university as “a degree mill where you pays yer money and you gets yer degree.” As we all know, THE MAN paid his money and got both a BA and an MA, even if he didn’t learn how to spell the name of his double alma mater (check out his CU web-site).

My point, of course, is that you have this young man leaving the boondocks of Central Illinois and driving less than 100 miles to attend college in a counter-culture environment where Marxism is all the rage. And he has already been to Vietnam … and he has discovered how easy it is to pass himself off as part Indian and as a paratrooper on top of that. I can only imagine that there, but for the grace of God and his father’s millions, goes George W, Bush. But maybe not.

One thing led to another and in the late 1970s this part Indian Vietnam War hero with a masters degree found himself working as an affirmative action officer at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Perhaps to understand my admiration for THE MAN you should know something about Boulder too. I spent a week there about a year ago, and met a young townie who had all nine of his guitars in a local pawn shop. He told me the townie’s take on Boulder is that “it’s eight square miles surrounded by reality.” I didn’t argue, but if your notion of reality is wealthy Texans and Californians desecrating the natural beauty of the Colorado Rockies by buying up the land, building enormous houses, and driving their Suburbans, Navigators, and Humvees hither and yon, all the while being led by the likes of Bill Owens (government) and Peter Coors (business), well who am I to take issue with that. And if your university spends an inordinate amount of its time and budget cow-towing to a corrupt and sexist football coach at the cost of losing a perfectly respectable and potentially successful president, then it’s difficult for me to know whether I’d rather live inside or outside those eight square miles.

Not surprisingly THE MAN thrived in that environment, and presumably, after having his credentials completely and thoroughly scrutinized by the requisite faculty and administrative committees, not once, not twice, not thrice, but on four separate occasions, he became a tenured full professor and chair of the Ethnic Studies Department … and it all took place in less than fifteen years … and he had time to win the prestigious Boulder Faculty Assembly teaching award in the process. Pretty impressive I’d say for a fellow who grew up in tiny Elmwood. I mean, Ward Churchill is, if nothing else, the all-American success story.

Quoting Barnum again, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Apparently the some that Churchill fooled all of the time were members of the CU Ethnic Studies Department … and get out the CU organizational chart and trace it from that department all the way up to the president’s office. Now you’ve got the picture.

I think everyone — or at least almost everyone — will agree that Churchill’s statement about the “little Eichmann’s” who were murdered in World Trade Center on 9/11 is protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, he doesn’t appear to be the kind of guy who goes around making a great many outrageous statements like that, lest David Horowitz would already have a book on the market listing them. My goodness, I once called Richard Nixon a crook and apparently even I have been forgiven for that. Why not forgive THE MAN his single indiscretion, however repugnant it was?

I might add that I think his claims about his Indian heritage, while apparently untrue, are only marginally more dishonest than the claims that George W. Bush served in the National Guard, Dick Cheney has no interest in Halliburton, and Pat Robertson routinely leg bench presses 2,000 pounds (see “Can’t Argue With Art Deco …” in that previously cited IHE essay). Furthermore, Churchill’s big white lie is a piker compared to Colin Powell telling the world it’s absolutely 100% guaranteed that Saddam Hussein has a storehouse of WMDs, we‘ve got the intelligence to prove it, and we should go to war over it.

Now, about Churchill’s research. I’m confident we all know plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty are, if not epidemic, at least ubiquitous amongst faculty at American colleges and universities (see the comment “How Much Evidence Do You Need?“ under the IHE essay, Truth and Consequences,” May 17, 2006). I certainly would not argue that just because “everyone” does it we should look the other way when we see a particular individual doing it. But isn’t it odd that of all those who would fail the test of professional purity at CU they should spend such an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to bring down THE MAN?

It is one thing to address academic behavior for which we have hard-and-fast rules; what about the myriad activities that fit in that very large gray area between right and wrong? After writing my dissertation, “Multivariate Probability Models of Rational Choice,” I became one of a group of about 50 research scholars writing papers with very elementary mathematics and statistics content that fit somewhere between economics, and political science. The standard practice amongst that collection of scholars was to submit a paper for publication while simultaneously sending a copy of the “working paper” to each of the members of the “club.” Then, when the journal editors sent a paper out for “blind review,” it was received by reviewers who had 20/20 vision as far at that particular paper was concerned. Did the editors care? Of course not, they too were members of the club submitting their own papers to themselves. Were these club members intellectual lightweights with appointments at below tier-one universities? Don’t kid yourself.

Let’s see, we’re up for AACSB accreditation at the moment, but we have a shortage of published papers in refereed journals. Our strategy will be to multiply the number of publications by having as many “honorary authors” on each submitted paper as possible. Of course one can’t actually write that directive down, but is it practiced? Is it ethical?

How many book reviewers have thoroughly read and studied the books for which they write reviews? Especially if they’re being “remunerated,” how many of those reviews are honest descriptions of the books? Hmmm, about the book, “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance,” none other than Noam Chomsky wrote, “Ward Churchill has carved out a special place for himself in defending the rights of oppressed people, and exposing the dark side of past and current history, often marginalized or suppressed. These are achievements of inestimable value.” Did I happen to mention the reviewer is Noam Chomsky … I mean that Noam Chomsky who is ranked numero uno amongst public intellectuals?

Needless to say, I could get carried away with this, but enough is always more than enough. For the most part, Ward Churchill is an essayist, not a research scholar. He has not fudged the data about his subjects, and he fudged the data about himself in a way that his “superiors” found more than acceptable for quite a long time, even in the face of more than a few questions about its veracity. All of a sudden, sometime in 2001, the character and quality of his work changed, and his scholarship required a retrospective review. I assume, having seen the wisdom of its ways, sometime during the next year or so the University of Colorado will scrutinize the work of all of its faculty and research scholars in precisely the way it has assessed the work of THE MAN. But maybe not.

To conclude, I think Professor Churchill is a wonderful inspiration — almost a mentor — to the unknown number of marginally bright, poorly educated, practically astute, hard working individuals whose dream it is to pursue a career in higher education. I cannot predict how important he will be in the scheme of things, but, as I write this, he has a nine-page spread in Wikipedia (when copied into an MS Word file). And, for you young academic aspirants out there, why settle for a university below tier-two? The University of Colorado bills itself as “a world class university … CU-Boulder is recognized as one of the outstanding public universities in the United States” Ward Churchill has demonstrated, and beyond a shadow of a doubt, you young folks should believe the sky is the limit.

As far as I’m concerned “HE DA MAN!“

Frizbane Manley, at 8:15 am EDT on May 29, 2007

What are you arguing for?

Concerned writes, “Yes, if you stop someone for something that is not illegal, under the pretense that it is illegal, and then you find something illegal, a court will throw that out nine times out of ten.”

You misinterpret the analogy. If a cop sees a bumper sticker he doesn’t like and also notices the car is speeding you’re arguing he should give the speeder a pass. How crazy is that? Does it matter at all what speeds the driver reaches or does the initial bumper sticker revulsion make the officer too tainted to confront it all? Can another officer confront the speeder or must it be allowed to continue? Tell us how “concerned” you are about that.

You also write, “There are so many questions about the validity of people’s scholarship...If someone gets past tenure, is widely read and cited...then we should put our bias down...they are only living up to the standard that hires and fires are politically, not genuinely academically, motivated.”

Again, what are you arguing for? Do you view tenure as a “home base” that gives a professor immunity from criticism and responsibility? You ask us to “put our bias down.” Which bias is that? Our bias against sloppy scholarship? I think I’ll keep that one.

Ward Churchill made outrageous statements. Those statements got him noticed. In turn, people began to read his scholarship. They found unacceptable problems with it. They work to fire him as an academic fraud. What’s illogical or illegal about any of this?

Unapologeticaly Tedious, Math teacher, at 8:50 am EDT on May 29, 2007

This attack would never happen on the right

Here is the way it works: if the plagiarist or ciminal scholar supports the status quo, then they are free to continue their routine w/o close examination, if they are in opposition to the regimes of power, they come under attack.

Just consider the fine scholarly record of Henry Kissinger—who Sig Diamond found FBI documents proving read his fellow department member’s mail at Harvard. I’m sure there are academic positions awaiting the great liars of the Bush administration for such lying sacks of crap as Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Rummy, etc.

The entire proces is a thin farce of the sort we should expect from Colorado.

KL-1135, at 9:10 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Ward Churchill and tenure

The fact that Ward Churchill was permitted to continue poisoning fine young minds for another TWO YEARS after calling the victims of 9/11 “Little Eichmann’s", speaks volumes about how far we go in this great country to assure that fairness and respect are given even to the most politically insane amongst us.

The only poltically correct aspect of Mr. Churchill’s proposed firing is that it took two years to get to it, and it is still only a proposal. Ahh, the sloth of academe!

feudi pandola, at 9:10 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Bad Analogy

The bumper sitcker/speeder analogy is a bad one, not least because it minimizes both the seriousness of the charges against Professor Chuchill and the degree to which his due process rights have been violated. A better comparison would be raised by the following question:

If the government doesn’t like a person’s political speech and so audits her taxes, is the audit justified as long as the person was really committing tax fraud?

Unapologetically Tenured, ...but never tedious, at 9:10 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Yeah! Uh-huh!

” .. As far as I’m concerned “HE DA MAN!“

Yup. He’s also symbolizes:

* Students who throw temper tantrums if they don’t get their way and refuse to go to the library.

* Groups who think God gave them permission to physically silence their political rivals (e.g., Denver’s Italian-Americans). Also exemption from the silly rules that others have to follow.

* Tenured faculty who have never had an original thought in their entire career.

* Never having to use a calculator to determine if enough money is available to fund 90% of random ideas that enter the mind.

* Why administrator-bureaucrats BS their way to six-figure pensions. Endless, useless meetings and “whine-fests.” The buck-passing.

* Unemployable graduates with lousy work ethic, poor basic skills, and an overblown sense of entitlement. And their helicopter parents who immediately file a grievance if Billy doesn’t get B-minus grade — even if he’s addicted to ESPN.

* College marketing departments who “educate” the public about the concept that only college graduates can make $40,000/year. Even with 2,200+ dissertations on Shakespeare.

* Never having to be accountable.

Homer, at 9:50 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Just a thought

Seems to me that CU is living by the much ballyhooed phrase, “CYOA.” I leave it to each of you to fill in the blanks.

Martin, at 9:55 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Analogies Are Like Cockroaches ...

The Only Good One Is A Dead One!

What I love about arguments based on analogy is that you can always – need I mention that that means invariably – push them to their illogical extremes.

If you’re a traffic cop, cleverly hidden behind a hedge next to I-81, and fifteen straight vehicles whiz by almost bumper-to-bumper and at 85 mph, doesn’t it make sense to single out the one with a bumper sticker that says “Little Eichmanns Are Evil” to chase down and ticket?

If a trooper stops a motorist because she thinks his catalytic converter has been disconnected and, in the process, discovers that he needs an oil change, is she ethically, morally, or legally required to tell him?

Want more?

Arguing by analogy indeed!

RWH, at 9:55 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Doesn’t Get to Root Cause

Those responsible for hiring Churchill are still there. The culture of the university hasn’t changed. Firing Churchill is meant to take the heat off a failed institution.

Jason P, at 10:00 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Ciao Churchill

The long-winded, hilariously insipid, tendentious and semi-literate ranting posted above by “Frizbane Manley” provides all the evidence one needs to expel that phonie Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado.

Thanks alot FrizbaneManley for a fine example of the twisted, illogical, question-shifting style that characterizes those who defend frauds and liars like Churchill in the name of academic freedom.

University of Colorado President Hank Brown is a shining exemplar of what the modern university President should be. For a wretched example of his opposite, review the spinelessness of the Duke University’s President in handling the rape fraud case against the lacrosse team.

Chickens-Coming-Home-to-Roost, at 10:20 am EDT on May 29, 2007

poisoning ?

Mr. Pandola, Isn’t it a bit of an overstatement to say that he was “poisoning” “fine” young minds? First of all, many people think that students that attend that school are not all that “fine.” But, besides that elitism, if these minds are really so “fine” they are under no obligation to accept any assertions made in a class at face value.

Indeed, Mr. Pandola, it seems that you are insulting the students at his institution by saying that they would allow their minds to be “poisoned.”

Finally, it seems that the institution did not conclude that he was in any way at all incompetent when it came to teaching.

(I don’t take a position on Mr. Churchill, and I don’t care about him one way or the other.)

Larry, at 10:20 am EDT on May 29, 2007

What?

” .. If the government doesn’t like a person’s political speech and so audits her taxes, is the audit justified as long as the person was really committing tax fraud?”

Well — the IRS got Al Capone, not the FBI. Should Capone get a pardon?

The IRS are bureaucrats. They follow the 22,000-page IRS code book. They wouldn’t care if you were from Mars. They just want you to “voluntarily” pay your taxes, and maintain their 8-to-5 existence.

If you don’t pay the IRS — you are in trouble, big-time. They will seize your house, car, and paycheck. They will put you in jail.

That’s the problem with Mr. Churchill’s ilk. They think they are above the petty rules and laws that others follow. They are not.

L.L., Fan of Unapologetically Tedious at Small College, at 10:20 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Forgotten idea

I’m afraid that with all the political belching and farting that has accompanied the “Churchill incident” a critically important idea will be forgotten, the idea that chickens can come home to roost.

People really do push back, in one way or another, when they perceive an attack. The basis of this perception as well as what determines the method of pushing back — from lobbying a politician to just blowing yourself up next to them — is worthy of much study.

Joseph C., at 10:25 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Jason is right

The real issue is—if Churchill is guilty of such egregious academic misconduct, why was he hired and tenured in the first place. The earlier person who said CYOA is right on target.

Personally I do not support Churchill’s comments, but he sure has a right to say them and I fear the attack on free speech and due process in this whole affair.

B. David Ridpath, Asst Prof at Ohio Univ, at 10:30 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Hard-headed Logic Versus Analogy

Just to prove my earlier point, please contrast the analogical nonsense above to the hard-headed logic of Chickens-Coming-Home-to-Roost. The latter argues that “...all the evidence one needs to expel that phonie (sic) Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado” is ...

1. Churchill’s supporters are “long-winded, hilariously insipid, tendentious and semi-literate.”

2. Churchill’s supporters exhibit “fine examples of the twisted, illogical, question-shifting style.”

3. University of Colorado President Hank Brown is a shining exemplar of what the modern university President should be ... as compared to Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead.

Now THAT proves the point ... and defines a logical standard for the rest of us to emulate.

RWH, at 11:15 am EDT on May 29, 2007

on traffic stops, Churchill and taxes

RWH, As a practical matter you are on to something – the pretext stop. In some jurisdictions, as belief exists that Hispanics don’t have drivers’ licenses. But since you can’t tell whether someone has a drivers license without stopping them, some dirty cops attempt to make up justifications. But, if it can be shown that the stop is bad, the whole thing falls apart. This doesn’t, of course, absolve the stopped person from having to get a drivers license, and more often then not DAs simply agree to stay proceedings while the defendant gets a license (or administratively clears up any problems), and then, upon such proof, asks that the case be dismissed.

LL, First of all, the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is not 22,000 pages. But this is not the only error I see in your reasoning, leading me to think that your analysis is more political then academic.

Perhaps if you factor in all regulations, old and new “Revenue Rulings” “Private Letter Rulings” and court cases, you get up to 22,000. But, this merely explains the depth of knowledge needed to understand our system of taxation. (You can buy a copy using ISBN: 0781103681).

Secondly, an assessment for purely political reasons probably would be unconstitutional. Moreover, if the government’s position was not “substantially justified” (on the record), the taxpayer would be entitled to attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Third, the IRS did not “get” Al Capone. First of all, the IRS didn’t exist then. Second of all, he wasn’t charged with simply not paying his taxes, but rather with “evading” taxes. This is much more serious, because it requires a showing of intent to defraud. Usually filing a “false” return is enough. But this needs to be proved to a jury. (Most tax disputes do not involve criminal intent, though, upon prepayment, an individual can obtain a jury trial regarding the facts at issue at a District Court.) The current version of the “Evasion” statute is 26 USC 7201, unlikely simply not paying it explicitly requires willfulness.

Fourth, I challenge you to show me one example of where the IRS has seized someone’s first home in the past 20 years. I think you are making this up. Since such a seizure would require a judgment at a District Court (a tax lien would be reduced to a judgment), I will be able to look on PACER and verify that this happened. Otherwise, I will continue to think that you made it up. While tax liens do enjoy some priority in bankruptcy, they can still be discharged, and the IRS will negotiate with people (as well as set up installment plans)? So, the fact is, that in the US, the government often has to deal with discharged tax debts.

Larry, at 11:15 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Okay, how’s this?

Do you get a pass for breaking the law because you did something to draw attention to yourself?

The man committed clear and continued ethical and academic fraud. What’s disturbing isn’t that he was caught – you sound an air horn, set off flares, jump up and down, and wave your arms, people are going to look at you. What is disturbing is that there are probably innumerous others committing the same ethics violations and fraud who are smart enough NOT to draw attention to themselves.

kh, at 11:40 am EDT on May 29, 2007

To my knowlege, Mr. Churchill’s right to say anything he wants to say has not been eliminated. He has had and continues to enjoy the opportunity and right to say anything he chooses to say. He, like all those who use this forum defending his right to do so, should remember that when one is placed in the eye of public scrunity, their robes should really be free of dishonest statements, self-serving fabrications, distortions, etc. For the academy to continue unbridled support of such, brings nothing but further erosion of any remaining confidence of those who have increasing concern about the objectivity of the academy.

HJ, at 11:55 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Left v Right

Is Churchill on the left because he was attacked by Horowitz from the right?

Seems scholarship on Indian affairs is in the center or have I missed something?

The decision with how to deal with Churchill should begin and end with Colorado University based upon who they want in their midst balanced by the Association of U Profs interest in the protection of tenure.

The above comments off those topics are out of bounds, to say the least.

Quizzical, at 11:55 am EDT on May 29, 2007

Amazing...

If academic conduct AMONG FACULTY is so widespread that fifteen proverbial cars pass before the campus police stop someone, than we have far greater problems than Ward Churchill. Those who defend Stephen Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Belliseles, or Ward Churchill (note Ambrose was a darling of the right) may find that blowback will come in the form of public retribution. If the academy allows passes to its media darlings then I fear the academy is no longer worthy of public support.

k.t., at 11:55 am EDT on May 29, 2007

response to KH

KH, You raise an interesting question there. “Do you get a pass for breaking the law because you did something to draw attention to yourself?” The answer is: sometimes.

Let’s start with the concept that there are some kinds of conduct that are “protected.” The reason that they “draw attention” to themselves is that the conduct is the conduct is inherently different than other peoples’ conduct. For example, a long time ago, in the US, most Americans were extremely in favor of the war. Most Americans though that Bush was the greatest president, ever. To say otherwise was often considered treason. But, for reasons that have been lost in the sands of time, the constitution protects political expression. (For reasons I don’t understand, the war is now considered folly, and Bush is unpopular.)

And the US constitution isn’t the only body of law that protects certain types of expression. Statutes do, too. And “expression” is not the only thing that is protected. Religious exercise is. Some contracts are, and the list goes on.

Secondly, by “pass” you probably mean “no punished.” Unfortunate as it sounds, many people get away with lots of things every day. We just accept this.

Third, and here is where it gets complicated, in most circumstances, there must be a valid reason to commence whatever proceedings are at issue. In the criminal context, there must be “probable cause” to proceed with criminal proceedings, and in the context of a stop by a police officer, there must be “probable cause” to conclude that some crime has been committed. But, this probable cause cannot consist of “protected activities.” So, it may very well be that some guy is driving without a license, smoking a joint, drinking a beer, and violating the Federal Wire Transfer Act in his car, if the initial stop was made because the cop saw his “Bush is #1 President” bumper sticker (this is a minority viewpoint now), then, yes, he gets away with it. (I don’t think that there are any inevitable discovery issues here, but I might be wrong.)

Again, I don’t really care one way or the other about Mr. Churchill.

Larry, at 12:50 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Just Making Sure You Understand ...

I must point out, k.t., that you are the one trying to make sense of a stupid analogy, one that was presented in the first place simply to illustrate how outrageous and, more often than not, illogical such arguments are.

Now if you’d like to discuss why Stephen Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Michael Belliseles, all of whom were apparently guilty of plagiarism, got free rides, while most of us have lined up to say “No free ride for Churchill,” well we could do so ... but let’s proceed in the absence of “argument by analogy.”

By the way, for much more about faculty dishonesty, check the URLs in the posts by RWH in ...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/17/churchill

Finally, what if the highway patrolperson stops a station wagon filled with liberal political scientists in Niagara Falls and just south of the Canadian border ... no, no, I’m just kidding.

RWH, at 12:50 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Academic dishonesty among tenured faculty

The issue here seems simple: is Ward Churchill being fired because of his political comments, or because of academic dishonesty? And if the latter, is it unfair to punish him but not all other tenured faculty whose research and personal profile is found by peer review to violate academic standards?

WC’s career and peronal profile came under scrutiny because of his political comments. It appears that a large number of faculty colleagues found scholarly misconduct in his publications. My own review of published examples has confirmed the fact that a major problem exists in the research, but I haven’t looked into any biographical discrepancies (which are relevant to his departmental appointment). Is it unfair to punish him?

First, one does not excuse a miscreant from punishment simply because not all miscreants are punished. You just punish the ones you catch.

Second, there is a broader issue about scholarly misconduct that is discovered after promotions and tenure have been awarded. is there a statute of limitations on, say, plagiarism? If previous review committees did not spot the problem, should it now be overlooked? You may recall a similar case on this forum 2 weeks ago, about a New Mexico professor whose c.v. was found to contain inaccuracies that were not detected until recently. Should he lose his job?

We’ve discovered plagiarism and biographical inventions among politicians. Their misdeeds came to light because they sought publicity and a rival camp or journalists examined the details of their achievements. In the Churchill case, he called attention to himself by his public comments. This pnishment may be a chilling factor on free academic speech, but the solution is to not break the rules if you’re going to later call attention to yourself.

West Coast Prof, at 2:05 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Let the disclosure begin

So Ward will take this to court, which is fine with me as now we’ll get to view all the disclosure and view all the things we couldn’t before.

Ward Churchill has done absolutely nothing for American Indians at CU Boulder or nationally. It was all done for self-serving purposes. Now legitimate American Indian Studies scholars will have to work twice as hard to clean up his mess of 15 years of unworthy work.

Being the Director of the Ethnic Studies Department, especially claiming to be American Indian, Churchill should’ve been bringing in top scholars, whether American Indian or not, to the CU Ethnic Studies Department, instead he brought in his already tenured wife at another university. Talk about nepotism!

Ward Churchill never went out of his way to assist or offer assistance to the American Indian Student Organization at CU. Growing up native we all get ingrained with ta sense of community. Of course he expected any AI student to go out and protest his little annual protest in the streets of Denver and seemed to convince the radical white students at CU to tell us AIs that it was our duty to do so, oh yeah and they offered, or rather spoke with fork tongues, when those students and Churchill said anyone who gets arrested will have full and free legal assistance. BS! My friend had to appear in court by himself. So yeah Churchill has poisened white young minds who can’t think for themselves. Telling Indians what our duty as Indian people should be.

Let some other university put up with his BS rantings and publications. It’s about damn time CU kicks him to the curb!

Colorado Buffalo, at 2:05 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Missing the Point

What at least 90% of the people commenting on this have not done is actually read the report that condemns Churchill. What that reveals is that the “panel” that investigated Churchill was certainly on a witch hunt.

On nearly all of the allegations, the panel finds that the truth of the matter is in a gray area, yet recommends that he be fired anyway. This report was anything but objective, and obviously motivated by partisanship, as just about everything pertaining to CU is.

Outside of Boulder itself (where Churchill retains solid support, the university president, appointed by a Republican governor, notwithstanding), Colorado is dominated by right-wing politics.

People!!! Take the time to read the report from an objective viewpoint, and you’ll see that this truly is modern McCarthyism.

Steve, Dr., at 2:05 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Like Larry I don’t care too much either way about Mr. Churchill. If anything I believe a couple of eccentric professors liven up a university. As I have stated before, I don’t believe that Mr. Churchill has been singled out because he is liberal but rather because he fit into the old saw that the nail that stands out gets hammered.

In America, being seen seems to mean getting investigated — whether by paparazzi, reporters, pundits or professors.

To continue this analogy-thon I would say that Mr. Churchill’s case could be more like a car with bright, flashing neon lights driving down a highway. These lights caused the policeman (and everyone else) to look at the car. Once the policeman looked, she saw that the car was speeding.

stm60, UConn, at 2:05 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Who’s “We"?

Larry, you stated “Unfortunate as it sounds, many people get away with lots of things every day. We just accept this".

You might choose to accept this. I don’t. You might claim that that is unrealistic. In that case, I would submit that your reality is a rather poor one. Acceptance is the first step on a very slippery slope.

kh, at 2:15 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

getting away with things

KH, Then life must be very painful. I guarantee you that right now, in universities across the country, students are 1) using drugs; 2) engaging in adultery illicit sex; 3) viewing pornography on campus computers; 4) some students are illegally parking; 5) some are speeding; or 6) taking figure drawing classes (or modeling for them) for the wrong reasons. I have not even started with academic violations, but the knowledge that all these people are getting away with these things with absolutely no repressions whatsoever must be driving you insane! Have you sought counselling from your institution’s department that counsels you (and informs the police if you say the wrong thing)?

I, on the other hand, realize that people are getting away with a lot of stuff.

Larry, at 2:30 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Churchill & China

NYTimes’ Kristof had an interesting column on education in China (reg. req’d; free to *.edu e-mail accounts). He cites Chinese student work ethic, historic respect for high standards in education, and belief that time-on-task matters v. “high IQ.”

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html

Then you have Mr. Churchill. Having taught in China, being from a large Chinese family, IMHO, he’d either be serving a long prison sentence or possible death sentence for deceiving his deans, students and the taxpayers.

Chinese education is demanding, rigorous. Something Mr. Churchill and his apologists will never understand. They are lucky that they are in the U.S., instead of Asia — they would last only a few days.

B.D., at 3:30 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Shed some light Dr. Steve

Dr. Steve writes..."What at least 90% of the people commenting on this have not done is actually read the report that condemns Churchill...On nearly all of the allegations, the panel finds that the truth of the matter is in a gray area...This report was anything but objective...you’ll see that this truly is modern McCarthyism.”

Dr. Steve, can you share any details that helped you come to this conclusion? Do you trust Churchill scholarship? Should others?

Churchill defenders are long on rhetoric and short on reasons why any professor of character and merit should fear similar treatment. This is not a tragedy, this is the academy cleaning house and defending it’s reputation.

Unapolegticaly Tedious, Math Teacher, at 3:30 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Larry, realizing that people commit unethical acts and academic fraud, and accepting it, are two different things.

Oh, and nice argument there — accusing me of being insane. That kind of comment detracts from any good point you might have had.

kh, at 3:30 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Selective Law Enforcement

Let us assume for a moment that Ward Churchill plagiarized. Let us also assume that all those who plagiarize deserve to be punished. The key question here is why was Ward Churchill investigated for plagiarism, when no other faculty at the University of Colorado was. Nobody in the academic community had brought a complaint of plagiarism against Churchill. In this case, Brown acted like the Seriff who sics his deputees on his political opponent or an estranged lover. This is selective law enforcement and malicious prosecutiton. I suspect Brown chose to sacrifice Churchill in order to please his political bosses and to keep his own job.

If the University of Colorado wants to take the moral high ground, it should immediately start an investigation of every faculty and administrator there for possible offenses of plagiarism and then take the same action against everyone found guilty of plagiarism. Let there be a massive purge and let us see how many would survive such an intense scrutiny. Until such a Universiy-wide investigation is completed, possibly with outside help, the University should suspend its judgment against Profesor Churchill.

Mathew, at 3:45 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Including ??

” .. Until such a Universiy-wide investigation is completed .. the University should suspend its judgment ..”

Would that include the three Nobel winners?

Just wondering ..

B.D., at 5:45 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

“The key question here is why was Ward Churchill investigated for plagiarism, when no other faculty at the University of Colorado was.”

This wasn’t a fishing expedition though. People had levied specific charges against him, and that was what the investigation mostly covered. IIRC, some of these charges had been out there for some time. You can argue that the attention given to him made it easier to start addressing them, but it wasn’t a matter of “OK let’s find some *new* stuff about Ward.” There was plenty of old dirt. This of course makes one wonder why all that old dirt hadn’t been examined before... If anything, one may argue that his fashionable radical chic had insulated him in the past. Once he found himself in the limelight, it became harder to blow off the complaints that had grown over time.

Bill, at 7:50 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Hmmm. Let’s put this in prespective with a question.

Compare and contrast: a)having tenure and getting fired for statements like Churchill’s and, b)being a University president and forced to resign for suggesting womens’ brains may be less adaptable than mens’to math and science.

You have 60 minutes and spelling counts.

Bob Avakian, at 7:50 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

I’ve Already Exceeded The Word Limit.

Sorry, already exceed word limit ... two short comments:

1. kh, if everyone who needed or sought counseling were insane, we would be in very bad shape. I thought you knew that.

2. B.D. I could hardly wait for someone to mention education in China and education at the University of Colorado in the same breath. Go to ...

http://www.comefromchina.com/bbs/topic/239305-1.html

Also, go to ...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/24/cheating

to see why the Chinese would love Professor Churchill.

Also, check out ...

http://nomorequo.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-asians-are-better-at-math.html

[Disclaimer: The author of this post may have accessed Wikipedia within the past 24 hours]

Frizbane Manley, at 7:50 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Asked and answered

” .. Also, go to ...”

Something from last week. Sorry — been there, done that. Bor-ing.

Is there academic cheating in China? Of course, only an idiot or fool would deny that.

During their high-stakes exams, do a few Chinese students commit suicide, before and after? Yes, they think education is that important.

If the families of the latter found a “Ward-o” on their faculty, could a mob form and beat him severely? Yes — China is not for the meek.

As to the noticable lack of U.S. students in U.S. math and engineering schools — simply appalling.

When Steve Jobs publicly questions whether the U.S. can still engineer and manufacture to world standards — something is rotting in the Public Educational Monopoly. Ward-o is merely one tiny, braying out-growth of that rotting process.

Hey — there has to be world peace. The U.S. can’t engineer the weapons to defend itself anymore. Thanks, Ward & Co.!

B.D., at 10:20 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Academic Misconduct

All faculty are subject to investigation by ethics committees, as soon as someone levels and supports the charges. People looked more closely at Ward Churchill because he made offensive statements, leading people to look into what other nonsense has he written? As I wrote above, the same process happens to politicians when they run for office, and people investigate their college records (Teddy Kennedy), plagiarism in speeches (Biden), religious background (Obama), honors thesis (Hillary Clinton), and any other discrepancies. The non-academic authors accused of plagiarism — Ambrose, etc. — were not subject to faculty discipline.

The provocative question remains: what should we do about academic misconduct that is discovered after some promotion or tenure committee failed to investigate? Is there a statute of limitations?

My view is that if a scientific publication is found to be fraudulent, even years after its publication, it still must be eliminated from the scholarly record. The harm done is even greater because of the scholarship that made use of the fraudulent work, and the evil intent is worse because the miscreant author had so many years to admit his/her misdeed and to correct the record but failed to do so.

West Coast Prof, at 10:20 pm EDT on May 29, 2007

Fraud is fraud

Ward Churchill has the right to say anything that he wishes, no matter how peculiar it might be. However, in committing some academic fraud he crossed the line. Do we give our students a pass for plagiarism, or for making false statements in a paper?

Lawrence McHargue, Prof. Emeritus of Biology at Vanguard University, at 3:15 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Let those who stand for academic integrity applaud the Hamilton professors Ted Eismeier and Robert Paquette for exposing the scoundrel Churchill.

Lucian, at 3:15 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Uhhh ... What’s Up B.D.?

“Hey — there has to be world peace. The U.S. can’t engineer the weapons to defend itself anymore. Thanks, Ward & Co.!”

Good Lord Man ... are you okay ... or did someone just shove you over the edge?

RWH, at 3:15 am EDT on May 30, 2007

Sick of politicaql prostitutes and LIES!

SP alledges “Fact is, the Colorado system is dominated by some pretty conservative viewpoints among its key policymakers.”

As a twenty year long Boulderite residing close to the University, who has attended CU, this comes as news to me!

Did “SP” miss the fact that CU law and B-school graduate, former Colorado Senator, and former University of Northern Colorado president Hank Brown’s nomination to become CU president was held up because he was too conservative? In fact, it was almost derailed by state politics!

People who know facts know that the University of Colorado system is no rubber stamp of “conservative” opinion. Stop lying!

Orson Olson, University of London, at 5:50 am EDT on May 30, 2007

So, show us

” .. Good Lord Man ... are you okay ... or did someone just shove you over the edge?”

So refer me to something in “Jane’s Defence Weekly” that indicates the U.S. will be engineering and manufacturing military weapons to world standards in 2012 and 2017. And not off-shore. And without going bankrupt like the old USSR.

B.D., at 5:55 am EDT on May 30, 2007

I Suppose I’m The One Who Is Over The Edge

Sorry B.D., you’re right. And to use your rationale, “Hey — there has to be [preservation of the environment]. The U.S. can’t [manufacture vehicles anymore that are both of high quality and environmentally friendly]. Thanks, Ward & Co.!”

Maybe we can blame him for the war against the people of Iraq? ... how about global warming? ... the national debt? You’re right, B.D., that Ward Churchill has been up to no good!

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

RWH is right (with Rush)

” .. The U.S. can’t [manufacture vehicles anymore that are both of high quality and environmentally friendly].”

Edit, sir! “Anymore” assumes the Big 3 did. Actually, it is today that Detroit quality has reached JPN level. All those years in Ann Arbor, chasing liberals for wild orgy parties finally ended!

Also: “Maybe we can blame him for the war against the people of Iraq?

(Yes, he provoked Wolfie and Shrub with the “little Eichmanns thing") ...

” .. how about global warming? (Ward-o drives a late-model Chevy 1500 truck) ... the national debt? (see: liberal wild orgy parties)?

“.. You’re right, B.D., that Ward Churchill has been up to no good!”

You’re thinking. That’s good.

B.D., at 10:30 am EDT on May 30, 2007

“Nobody in the academic community had brought a complaint of plagiarism against Churchill.”

You’re wrong. All of the complaints against Churchill originated within the academic community (See: Lavelle, Brown, Cohen).

“In this case, Brown acted like the Seriff who sics his deputees on his political opponent or an estranged lover.”

You are ill-informed. Hank Brown was not CU president when the complaints were made.

“I suspect Brown chose to sacrifice Churchill in order to please his political bosses and to keep his own job.”

You are incredibly ill-informed. Hank Brown already has announced his resignation, has no political bosses and doesn’t care about pleasing anybody but justice.

Al, at 4:30 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

sock puppetry

If the charges are true that Churchill forged scholarly support for his work — or engaged in what online devotees call “sock puppetry” — than that in itself should be enough to warrant his dismissal (not to mention the plagiarism, if those charges are true) ... http://www.paullevinson.net/archi...ward_churchill_professor_pinoc.phtml

Paul Levinson, Professor & Chair at Communication & Media Studies, Fordham University, at 11:00 pm EDT on May 30, 2007

STUPID ANALOGY

IF Ward would have kept his mouth shut he wouldn’t of ended up being scrutinized so closely. Basically, if you’re doing things you shouldn’t be doing, the best bet is to shut-up. When you’re doing things you shouldn’t be doing how stupid is it to bring attention to yourself. Dumb!

Bumper sticker analogy is a joke !!! CYA Ward !!!

MrRightAllTheTime, at 11:10 am EDT on June 5, 2007

Jobs Related to The Ward Churchill Endgame

or search for jobs directly.

615 Afrs — African American History
California State University, Long Beach

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS DEPARTMENT OF AFRICANA STUDIES Assistant Professor ... see job

African American Literature
Bard College

Bard is a private liberal arts college with approximately 1,800 students, located 90 miles north of New York City on the ... see job

Assistant Professor — Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Schaalman Chair in Jewish Studies
Chicago Theological Seminary

The Chicago Theological Seminary invites applications for a full-time, tenure-track faculty appointment to the newly ... see job

Associate Director
Bard College

Bard College invites applications for Associate Director of its Language & Thinking Program. The position includes an open ... see job

Director, Asian American Studies Center
University of California, Los Angeles

The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) invites inquiries, nominations and applications for the position of Director ... see job

African-American Studies & English
Wesleyan University, CT

The African American Studies Program and the English Department at Wesleyan University seek a specialist in African American ... see job

Tenure-Track Position in History — U.S. Gender and Sexuality
Williams College

US gender and sexuality. The Department of History at Williams College seeks to make an appointment at the rank of assistant ... see job

Assistant Professor of Chinese Language & Culture
Willamette University

Willamette University, the first University in the West! If you embrace our vision & motto, Non Nobis Solum Nati Sumus — ... see job

Assistant Professor or Associate Professor — International Studies: Middle East/Islamic World
Portland State University

The International Studies Program at Portland State University invites applications for a full –time, nine-month ... see job