Churchill sought attention

In an attempt to defend Churchill, some have claimed the only reason his academic offenses were discovered was because his research received increased attention due to the controversy. They say to find academic offences as the result of attention due to his extreme political views is inherently unfair. Here’s the problem with that argument: by publishing essays, publishing “research,” and speaking at other universities, Churchill was trying to garner attention. Because he was seeking attention by his own actions, I am not troubled that controversy brought increased attention to his work. He got all the attention he wanted (and more). He succeeded! I don’t think he can say, “Please examine this essay. Please attend to this idea. ...Whoa! Stop all this attention. I didn’t want that much attention!”

Publishing is, by definition, not a private activity. Published work is out there for anyone to read. His academic offenses were not expressed in private letters or telephone conversations. His offenses were expressed in work he voluntarily published. If his research could not stand public scrutiny, then he should not have published it to the public.

Churchill’s cheating is a stain on academia. I have no sympathy for cheaters, especially those who unapologetically and repeatedly cheat. Good riddance.

not_offended, at 5:55 am EDT on July 25, 2007

Why This Is an Academic Freedom Case

Academic freedom requires both a procedural and a substantive component, and the firing of Churchill violates it in both respects. First, on the procedural grounds, although Churchill did receive due process in terms of faculty investigations, the proposed punishment of dismissal violates the recommended punishment of suspension by most of the faculty. Enhancing the penalty should be done only in extraordinary cases where the faculty judgment is flawed, and certainly not in this case, where the investigation of Churchill’s work only occurred because of his political views.

The Churchill case also violates the substance of academic freedom because the faculty committee was simply incorrect in its judgments. As I wrote on InsideHigherEd.com, Churchill clearly did not commit research misconduct when he cited works that did not support his views about American history. The committee’s conclusions about plagiarism are also unsupported by the facts. We can argue about why the faculty committee at Colorado did such a terrible job–it could have been political pressure, anger at Churchill for being an unrepentant asshole and causing embarrassment to the entire university, an inadequate understanding of academic freedom, or simply an obsession with the academic details of the historical record rather than the question of what mistakes deserve official punishment rather than criticism.

All that has been proven is that Churchill made some dubious claims in his writings without any real evidence, and that he engaged in ghost writing for some other academics. This is appalling, and it should be condemned, but it is nowhere near a firing offense, nor should it be. We need to condemn bad scholarship, not let politically motivated administrators and regents decide what tenured professors get fired for holding unpopular views.

When we defend academic freedom, we are defending a principle, not a person. We need to defend people like Ward Churchill, even if they do act like jackasses or idiots sometimes. When Churchill is fired based on trumped up charges for political reasons, it puts all academics (regardless of ideology) at risk.

John K. Wilson, at 8:05 am EDT on July 25, 2007

Ward was too good for us

So the “Moo U PhD” crowd thinks itself above the “low-wattage” masses? My, how well they ape Mr. Churchill.

Low-watt personage — given climate change — turn off your funding abilities. Show you can be as noble as the “Moo U” PhDs. The world will be a better place.

L.L., at 8:15 am EDT on July 25, 2007

Unapologetically tenured, you said:

“Now I don’t want to start sounding like the folks at FIRE, who forecast the coming of the totalitarian apocalypse every time some callow campus racist is slapped down a bit too hard by frustrated college administrators. The sky is not falling just because one university has expelled its lowest hanging fruit.”

Two questions for you:

1. You do realize that FIRE defended Churchills’ academic freedom regarding his 9/11 writings, don’t you? http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5252.html

2. How many expulsions, kangaroo courts, and other violations of protected speech and due process have to take place before it becomes an actionable problem? Is it within your principles to retain such a blase attitude when a single student is “slapped down"?

Robert, at 9:25 am EDT on July 25, 2007

Ghost writing?

According to John K. Wilson, “The committee’s conclusion about plagiarism are also unsupported by the facts.”

Here is are some of those facts as reported by Scott Jaschik on IHE on May 17th, 2006. “The committee noted, for example, a number of similarities in an article Churchill wrote in 1992 with an article published the previous year by Fay G. Cohen, a professor at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. There can be ‘little doubt’ that large portions of the essay are Cohen’s work, the report said. In one instance, it found a footnote of more than 100 words that was identical ‘almost to the keystroke.’” The only difference in the footnote in Cohen’s article and the footnote in Churchill’s was one accent mark.

According to Wilson, “All that has been proven is that Churchill made some dubious claims in his writing without real evidence and that he engaged in ghost writing for some other academics.” If other academics such as Cohen hired Churchill to write under their names, that is a serious accusation against them and it represents corruption in academics well beyond one plagiarizing professor. Or, if what the faculty committee found represents Churchill’s individual corruption, in what Jaschik called “damning example after example", why should anybody concerned with academic standards defend him?

John J. Olson, at 9:55 am EDT on July 25, 2007

Dismissal Warranted

Mr. Wilson, Art Eckstein made the point ahead of me. But I repeat — Ward Churchill fabricated persons and events, and he quoted persons out of context to twist the meaning of their words to fit his agenda. He plagiarized the work of others. When these problems with his writing were called to his attention he did not make corrections. This is well documented. Please spend some time looking at the record. These are legitimate academic reasons for dismissing a tenured faculty member.

To Mr. Wilson and Unapologetically Tenured. Mr. Eckstein is correct — the reasons for the investigation are unpleasant. But the fact is, as he so accurately notes, politics had been a part of the underlying problem long before 2005. If you want to keep politics out of university faculty personnel processes, then you have to keep it out from day one. That is exactly what was not done here. There is plenty of blame to go around. The faculty tolerated the hiring and tenuring of an unqualified but politically connected hack. The administration hired and promoted a self-proclaimed Indian without verifying that he was qualified to be on the faculty. Administration and faculty tried to sweep complaints about Churchill under the rug to avoid the public disgrace of having to accept their share of responsibility for a bad hire. The public outcry finally forced them to act. But look folks — it is too late to complain about politics in academic hiring with a straight face. Everyone knows that Churchill’s hiring was a political act, as was his retention and promotion.

Yes, we ought to get politics out of the campus as much as possible. But that means recognizing that the politics which led to hiring Ward Churchill in the first place are as much of a problem as the politics behind the public outcry that led to finally examining his scholarly work. It also means recognizing that overtly politicized programs can lead to very undesirable outcomes.

Orson Buggeigh, at 10:45 am EDT on July 25, 2007

Ward Churchill

Ward Churchill of course is entitled to free speech, as is Don Imus, the Dixie Chicks etc. However, as they saw, free speech means that you don’t have to pay in advance to express your alleged thoughts, but one might pay later as others don’t have to accept your “freedom” without reacting.When one’s mouth capacity exceeds one’s brain capacity, unexpected results occurr. No institution is obliged to pay for the free speech of employees. Move on Ward and hate someone else.

roneida, at 11:50 am EDT on July 25, 2007

Internal matter?

One of the comments above state that “[T]he Courts should refuse to take jurisdiction of what is a CU internal matter.” What an outrageous statement! Forget the fact that this isssue has become a national issue as far as academic freedom is concerend. Forget the fact that access to court to seek remedy for a perceicved or real wrong is a citizenship rght. Only remember that in a state system tenure is a public property, over which courts have jurisdiction.

Bob, at 12:00 pm EDT on July 25, 2007

Nit Picking?

Taking a look at previously published reports, in Chruchill’s three decades of teaching, the committee was able to dig up 5-6 talking points to blow out of proportion. Now I don’t know if they teach math in Colorado, but by my calculations, that works out of 1 mistake the board might take exception to on average every 5-6 years.

Under the circumstances, my question is: If a similar level of scrutiny were applied to every professor on campus, how many would still have jobs 2 years from now?

The huff and puff, holier than thou approach given this matter is an obvious fraud. That is perhaps the real problem with acedemics, after awhile they assume everyone is a bright eyed 18 year old who will believe anything they say, regardless of their motives for saying it.

Don Earl, at 1:20 pm EDT on July 25, 2007

John Wilson’s misrepresentations

First, Wilson falsely claims that “most of the faculty” recommended suspension. The truth is that the two CU committees with the power to make a recommendation of sanctions split their decision. A majority of the Research Misconduct committee voted for dismissal. A majority of the P&T committee favored suspension. Thus the President’s decision to dismiss was not in contradiction with the faculty fact-finders.

Second, Wilson falsely claims that the findings of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are “unsupported by the facts.” This is simply incredible. Have a look at my analysis of Churchill’s smallpox blanket fraud at:http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf.

The case against Churchill is overwhelming. The fact that Churchill keeps changing his story and making up new lies to defend his old lies is in itself strong evidence of his dishonesty.

Churchill has advanced twelve different excuses for his plagiarism. Surely an innocent man would not need twelve different excuses. There is not space here to get into the details, but watch for my analysis of Churchill’s various excuses for his plagiarism, forthcoming in the Plagiary journal. Once again, the case against Churchill is overwhelming.

As the CU representatives observed, more than twenty five faculty serving on a number of committees all unanimously agreed that Churchill has committed serious research misconduct on a habitual basis, and deserves serious sanctions. Wilson’s hand-waving doesn’t change the facts.

Thomas Brown, at 1:30 pm EDT on July 25, 2007

Intergrity

If the evidence is as presented, Mr. Churchill appears to be a liar and a cheat, for which he has been dismissed. Academic freedom is not a freedom to steal the ideas and words of others without attribution or to present as fact one’s own fictions. Indeed, with academic freedom comes a responsibility to truth. Mr. Churchill’s statements about 9/11, while provocative and even inflammatory, certainly should be protected. His dishonesty should not be. There are too many arenas in our society in which plagiarism goes unpunished. Mr. Churchill should quit playing the martyr, since he’s a victim only of his own lack of character. The Colorado Regents are to be applauded.

MWCH, at 3:20 pm EDT on July 25, 2007

Tenure and Student Opinion

No one has said the procedures were not followed or that Prof. Churchill was denied his right to be heard.

Once that procedure is completed, by what right does Prof. Churchill have to seek judicial relief?

The search for did he do it is a bit late.

If student opinion counts, then lets interview the inmates at the asylum.

Quizzical, at 5:30 pm EDT on July 25, 2007

Congratulations to the unsung heroes at Hamilton College who uncovered this faker.

One Observer, at 8:25 pm EDT on July 25, 2007

Precisely the Point, Mr. Olson

Credibility is earned, not mandated. If the AAUP supports plagiarism and academic fraud, why should anyone place any stock in anything the AAUP says? I see no way that one can make an intellectually sound case for supporting Ward Churchill. He is not qualified to be on the faculty, and supporting Churchill only gives credibility to the critics who claim that academics are not competent to govern themselves.

Orson Buggeigh, at 1:20 am EDT on July 26, 2007

If WC wasn’t fired, how would the school have pursued plagiarism or academic dishonesty charged against students? “But faculty can do it and get away with it” would have been heard in every such case, and, frankly, it would have been persuasive. If the AAUP can’t see that, its simply a union that has outlived its usefulness in terms of service to the academy as a whole.

DG, at 1:20 am EDT on July 26, 2007

Professor Churchill

Churchill should have been fired long ago. Tenure was never intended to be so abused for so long.

Marvin McConoughey, at 5:35 am EDT on July 26, 2007

FIRE on the Starboard Deck

In case Robert is still hanging around, I wanted to respond to his claim that “FIRE defended Churchills’ academic freedom regarding his 9/11 writings".

If you mean that FIRE paid lip service to the principle that nobody should be dismissed for exercising their right to free expression, then you are correct. But that was never the issue. Rather, the question in the Churchill case is whether or not state institutions should be permitted to single out individual employees for special scrutiny simply because some local politicians are angered by the employees’ constitutionally protected speech. And to that, FIRE says, “Yes, sir!":

“FIRE wrote that Churchill freely injected himself into the public square, and that if ‘information that..legitimately places his job in jeopardy’ came to light, ‘then that is simply the hazard of voluntarily participating in the marketplace of ideas.” (www.thefire.com; 7/26/07)

That’s right, it’s FIRE’s position that if your constitutionally protected free speech triggers the academic equivalent of a full body cavity search, well, that’s just your problem.

In its heart of hearts, FIRE is a right-wing organization. And in this case, its justification for throwing Ward Churchill under the bus is no different from ACTA’s.

So I have an idea. You know those obnoxious College Republicans and their “Affirmative Action Bake Sales"? Well, next time they try to pull that sort of stunt, let’s convene a special committee to investigate every term paper ever written by the students involved, with an eye toward locating uncredited material, missed footnotes, false factual claims, and anything else that might get them thrown out of the university. Let’s teach these snotty little brats about the “hazard of voluntarily participating in the marketplace of ideas".

And when we do this, I just know that my friends over at FIRE will have our backs.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 8:45 am EDT on July 26, 2007

Selective Outrage

Unapologetic mentions the affirmative action bake sales. My impression was that those activities were already being repressed or discouraged in various ways by college administrators, as were any number of other expressions of conservative ideas on campuses all across the country. Universities have enforced a stultifying leftist culture of political correctness, which is what creates the environment in which the Ward Churchills flourish. Going by Unapologetic’s failure to acknowledge this state of affairs, it seems his concern for free speech only extends to speech that he does not regard as obnoxiously right wing. So it’s really all just political from the get-go, and people who politicize everything ought to know the hazards of doing that from their study of history.

Professor Frew, at 10:00 am EDT on July 26, 2007

expanding on Pico’s point about academic malpractice

Pico, and then Faculty Brat, when combined, raise a point I hadn’t thought of: Ward grading exams and essays of his students—exams based overwhelmingly on his own work.

Churchill often assigned his books (and ONLY his books) as the reading for his courses at CU; indeed, one former student said on a previous Ward discussion here in insidehighered.com that Ward required—required—that students buy these books, four or five of them, personally from him, in his office, for cash.

Leaving THAT little item aside, the point about Ward assigning his own books as the textbooks for his courses would be this: how many students over the years got a high grade from Ward for repeating to Ward the teacher Ward the “researcher’s” false and lying version of the Mandan Epidemic, complete with ahistorical Army forts on the Upper Missouri manned by ahistorical evil Army surgeons —NONE OF WHICH items ever existed, historically???

The mind boggles.

art eckstein, professor at maryland, at 11:00 am EDT on July 26, 2007

Ward, anon.?

” .. You know those obnoxious College Republicans ..”

——————-

Ward was accused of publishing under assumed names, then using that material.

Given the above — is Ward up to his old tricks? Or do he and Mr. Horowitz, have some under-the-table, revenue-sharing deal?

Crafty, brilliant, over-the-top — Ward’s one of a kind.

L.L., at 12:35 pm EDT on July 26, 2007

What is never mentioned when discussing the Churchill case, is that for over 15 years, American Indians have been complaining to CU about Churchill’s shoddy scholarship and his bizarre, often violent behavior in the Indian community.

Some say Churchill is a media clown that no one takes seriously. He’s also called a poster boy for free speech in academia, yet there is method behind his madness. His “scholarship” has been widely used in college classrooms for years. An entire generation is now wandering around with his scurrilous notions implanted in their brains. Many take him seriously, certain academics included.

His “buffoonery” is well known and largely loathed in the American Indian community. Using mean-spirited rumors, sophomoric name calling, distorted facts, figures, and accusations, he has bullied his way through Indian America, sowing seeds of discord among organizations and tribes, wherever he ventured. In that atmosphere of disunity and suspicion, supported by university “credentials,” his work has served a seemingly greater purpose — the further marginalization of Native Americans.

Some call him a “crazy.” Long ago many Indians understood him as a wolf in sheep’s clothing-a “radical, non-Indian, Indian activist” who confused and confounded instead of explained and enlightened complicated issues of Native America. Crazy? Or crazy like a fox?

During this investigation, CU admitted Churchill’s native identity was becoming “increasingly dubious.” This very statement exemplifies how little respect CU held for Indians in this matter. Over a decade ago, three different tribes he tried to align himself with, flatly denied his membership, or that of his ancestral family. Why wasn’t tribal authority respected? Ironically, one reason is that through his “scholarly work” Churchill has cast a shadow of disrespect, doubt, and disbelief over tribes. The consequences have been sorely felt throughout Indian and scholarly communities across the nation. When complaints over Churchill’s “little Eichman’s” essay first hit the newswire, many Indians rolled their eyes and sighed. Some believed that by behaving like a “wacky, radically liberal professor,” Churchill’s new goal was to enrage conservative education critics, pitting them fiercely against the thing he claims to revere — academic freedom. His intention is to divide rather than unite forces for positive change. This certainly fits his MO in his dealings with the Indian community. The publicity he generates is not favorable toward Indians or academia, and has created an outcry for conservative reform in the academy. Do not believe for one instant, that Mr. Churchill has lost one wink of sleep over the damage he has done to Indians or CU. His conduct in the light of CU’s decision, confirms what many have long believed: he is a dangerous presence in the University. For their willingness to finally admit that, CU must be congratulated. Indians who once trusted Churchill are now wiser. Only time will tell if CU has learned from its mistakes. Academic freedom of speech is more than a right; it’s a grave responsibility to present truths and speculations accurately and honestly. Educating is a privilege that should be conducted as objectively as possible, and should never be taken lightly.

Patti Jo King, Native American Graduate Historian / Journalist at University of Oklahoma, at 3:00 pm EDT on July 26, 2007

So what if his “Eichmann” comment brought on the added scrutiny? His work IS supposed to be scrutinized. The real question is why this wasn’t caught (or dealt with) before. All academic work should be subjected to this level of scrutiny, INCLUDING every paper undergraduates write (if unapologeticly tenured is interested). But it is the grader’s responsibility to assign a grade, not the masses.

This is the same thing here. WC’s work was scrutinized by the masses, but the appropriate bodies gave the “grade".

And the only way this suppresses free speech is among those people who have been fraudulent or sloppy in their research. Given the supposed standards that higher ed holds, how is this a bad thing?

Geoff Matthews, at 3:00 pm EDT on July 26, 2007

CHILLED ATMOSPHERE

To Unapologetically Tenured

You are of the opinion that the Churchill case is largely about the “ferocity of the right-wing culture warriors…that this case, and those that inevitably follow, will create a chilled atmosphere that increasingly silences legitimate voices on the left.”

Au contraire. It is about the transformation in the last 40 years of the university from a community of diverse thinkers into one where opinions that stray from the politically correct line of the moment are ostracized. The outcome of the Churchill case may mean that the leftwing faculty on campus, overwhelmingly the majority, will be less able to commit academic fraud, and that more diverse opinions may be heard.

Ironically, the “chilled atmosphere” applies mostly to those of the “right” who attempt to express their opinions on campuses. Consider Republican students at San Francisco State who stomped on the Hezbollah flag. For this act of free expression, they got hauled before a tribunal. While they fortunately got acquitted, they should never have had to go through this. Had the students stomped on an American flag, the administration would most likely have applauded. The students at Columbia who attempted to have a member of the Minutemen speak, got their meeting disrupted, and had to cancel the speech. “Left-wingers” prevented “right-wingers” from speaking. Punishment meted out to the disrupters was minimal. Who is chilling the atmosphere?

When I was a faculty brat, there was a definite diversity of opinions on college faculties- sometimes within the same person. Ban-the-bombers and staunch Republicans were among the friends and colleagues of my professor father. My professor father voted for Norman Thomas, Eisenhower, and LBJ. During the Vietnam War, the professor in the office to my father’s left put up a sign against the Vietnam War. The professor in the office to his right, an Army Reserve officer and a staunch Democrat, put up an American flag. My father posted a “DMZ” sign.

Today, faculty opinion is overwhelmingly on the left. While some may contend that the left is the only feasible political position for one who thinks and reads and is ethical, the facts point otherwise. The left was wrong on Reagan’s conduct of the Cold War, Gulf War 1, and welfare reform, for starters. I found out that the “progressive” ideas that the academy held about Latin America had no bearing on the reality I encountered when working in Latin America nor did these “progressive” ideas hold up under extensive independent library research I conducted when back in the US. Call me a post-liberal, an un-democrat.

The left’s viewpoint that its viewpoint is the “virtuous” one is the issue. From it comes the academic fraud of Churchill. With the correct viewpoint, what do footnotes matter? At the same time, Churchill’s loose interpretation of academic standards is the exception, not the rule.

Faculty Brat, at 3:55 pm EDT on July 26, 2007

Couple of Responses

I see that my remarks have elicited the usual ratio of thoughtful responses to trollish grunting. I’ll try to respond to a few of the people in the thoughtful group.

Professor Eckstein: My comments about the snotty brats and their “Affirmative Action Bake Sales” was not meant to be taken as a serious proposal. It was, instead, a reaction to FIRE’s rather cavalier statement about the “hazard[s] of voluntarily participating in the marketplace of ideas". Such hazards exist, of course, but one of those shouldn’t be the possibility that public institutions will subject their employees (or students) to unusual scrutiny as a result. And FIRE, if we are to take seriously their self-proclaimed mandate, should be among the first to recognize this.

I have no idea what motives the University of Colorado had for hiring, tenuring, or promoting Professor Churchill. Nor, for that matter, do I really care. Universities, like all institutions, make their share of bad decisions.

But there is an important difference between the internal politics of a university and the outside pressure brought to bear by well-heeled ideological warriors and disingenuous politicians. Whatever the previous charges leveled against Churchill, his firing is a direct consequence of an orchestrated campaign that was developed in response to his constitutionally protected speech. Had Churchill not exercised his First Amendment rights, he would not have been dismissed by the University. It is as simple—and as improper—as that.

Did Churchill make it easy for the culture warriors and their shills to pull this off? Of course he did. He’s that kind of guy. But don’t be so sure that a lesser violator (or even non-violator) would have escaped punishment for similarly politically incorrect speech. Allow me to quote myself from a previous Churchill thread:

“There’s a precedent for this sort of thing. Richard Berthold of the University of New Mexico made an offensive joke on September 11, 2001, telling his class that ‘anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote’. Even after apologizing, he was forbidden from teaching freshmen, publicly reprimanded, and was told he would be singled out for an in-depth post-tenure review. He was not fired, though he did retire a couple of years later (I have no idea if his retirement was previously planned, or resulted from the incident and its aftermath). The point is, even though he was never accused of any Churchill-like misconduct, he was punished for his constitutionally protected speech by a state university that was under enormous political pressure.”

Faculty Brat: As I have pointed out before on this site, the fact that professors in the humanities and social sciences tend to be liberals is almost certainly a matter of self-selection. We almost never know the ideological preferences of the people we hire. Nor do we know the views of those we admit into our Ph.D. programs. Therefore, if the academy leans left, it is because our applicant pools (both faculty and graduate student) do the same.

But remember, too, that even if most college professors are liberals or leftists, that doesn’t mean that they are in the indoctrination business. (And if they are, they’re doing a pretty poor job of it; a majority of college graduates generally votes Republican.) Most professors love to have engaged students, regardless of their ideology. I’d much rather take questions and comments from a smart conservative undergraduate than stare into a see of glassy-eyed apathetics. Moreover, good conservative students should enjoy being challenged by professors who see the world differently (assuming, of course, that they are not graded down for their views, something that occurs far, far less than the noise machine would like you to believe). A good professor is one who makes you reconsider and justify everything you’ve ever believed in. Do not mistake this for indoctrination.

Finally, a good professor of any ideology would caution you against making such overly simplistic comments as, “the left was wrong on Reagan’s conduct of the Cold War, Gulf War 1, and welfare reform". Reagan’s conduct of the Cold War included turning a blind eye toward vicious Central American death squads; the biggest critics of Gulf War 1 were the neo-cons who thought that Bush 41 failed to finish the job; and welfare reform was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 4:35 am EDT on July 27, 2007

the Berthold case is a terrible case

Dear Unapologetically Tenured:

The Berthold case is indeed a terrible case. There are two sides to the story, and I give them below. But I find the two letters from Berthold’s colleagues pretty appalling. Berthold in my view was terribly mistreated. He was a campus curmudgeon, had been for 30 years, and I think revenge was now taken on him by colleagues and administrators whom he had previously angered by his attitude towards what he calls a “second-rate university”, after his remarks to two classes on 9/11.

Three points:

1. The incident which brought him down did have to do with his behavior in class, NOT statements made outside of class (where free speech issues would be more relevant).

2. FIRE was instrumental in protecting him as much as he was protected, and wanted him to fight on. So I think, UT, your strictures against FIRE are misplaced.

3. As it happens, I use Berthold scholarly work personally, and I have NEVER found him to have fudged or faked a footnote, let alone made up entire incidents or people. I repeat: NEVER. NEVER.

To me, this puts him in a different category from Churchill. Berthold is a reputable and responsible scholar. A difficult colleague? Perhaps so. But Ward Churchill is an academic fraud who was protected by CU for two decades despite grotesque academic malpractice, until he got too hot. AAUP is making a big mistake defending Churchill, for all the reasons people have posted above. AAUP should, however, have defended Berthold more strenuously and they did not. (By the way, Peter Kirstein defended Berthold, as he defends Churchill here on this thread. Kirstein is consistent, and has my respect for this, though I disagree with him on Churchill.)

Here is Berthold from History News Network, Nov. 25, 2002—and a reply from two of his colleague-critics.

My Five Minutes of Infamy By Richard M. BertholdMr. Berthold is a former professor of history at the University of New Mexico.

Prior to 11 September 2001 I was simply a professor of classical history, popular on the campus but essentially unknown beyond the confines of the second-rate university where I have taught for the last thirty years. Then, on that day, while preparing to leave for an eight o’clock Western Civilization class, I watched in amazement as two airplanes flew into buildings in New York City. A bit later in front of perhaps one hundred students I then uttered the remark that brought me my fifteen minutes of fame – or better, infamy: “Anybody who blows up the Pentagon gets my vote.” Why? I have long been suspicious of and more recently very disappointed in the military and civilian leadership of my country, and the remark, which referred to the Pentagon and said nothing about the World Trade Center, was clearly a reflection of my disagreement with much of our foreign policy. Over thirty years of teaching I have on many occasions made such comments about the government, inevitably to the amusement of students, and in fact three current and former Pentagon workers subsequently informed me that they made cracks like that all the time. But in an embarrassing moment of insensitivity and stupidity I made this observation when more than a hundred people had just died at the Pentagon, making those words an exercise in incredible callousness and setting myself up as a lightning rod for all the anger and frustration sweeping the nation. Let me say right off that I am not, as everyone immediately assumed, some sort of liberal or leftie, and I have in fact for three decades been fighting liberal silliness and threats to free speech on campus. Nor am I, like many who castigated me in the media, an unthinking conservative. Depending upon the issue, I might be to the left or to the right, and I despise those benighted types, many of whom are intelligent enough to know better, who cannot think outside their ideological boxes. Contrary to the belief of so many plainly silly conservatives, it is entirely possible to love this country and be disgusted with its political leadership. It is entirely possible to support out troops and respect our veterans while believing Donald Rumsfeld is a greater danger to this nation than any terrorist. And if one regards the Constitution as one of the greatest political documents ever created, as I do, it is in fact a duty to criticize the Bush administration and its whacko attorney general, John Ashcroft. Most Americans, however, do not pause to consider such things, especially in a moment of national hysteria, and the hate mail and death threats began to pour in, as the society made the easy assumption that I was a typical pinko, un-American professor. I deleted the ones that began with “go join your raghead friends in Afghanistan, you commie” or some similar sentiment, but I attempted to answer every reasonable criticism of my words. I was astounded, though perhaps not surprised, at how many outraged Americans reminded me how much blood was spilled to defend our freedoms and then in the next sentence denied me one of those freedoms. It is a constant source of wonder to me how frequently Americans speak of the need to defend freedom, often with war, while at the same time being so quick to surrender that freedom in the interests of security, cheap gasoline or whatever. Increasingly sick of being told I should resign, I began replying that I would resign if they promised to quite their jobs the next time they made an offensive or stupid remark. The point was lost on most, I am sure. As a long-time gadfly at my university, I was accustomed to taking flak from sundry offended persons and groups on campus, but this was different. I had never received death threats before and had no idea whether they should be taken seriously, until some patriot attempted to assault me in front of my house. I also learned that local talk radio hosts were stopping just short of telling their listeners it was all right to beat the hell out of me. And while it is a heady experience to receive requests for interviews from the likes of CNN and Nightline, receiving over a hundred hate emails a day starts to get to you. The one bright side was the support that began to pour in from the almost 20,000 students who have passed through my classes in the last three decades. Especially gratifying were the letters of support from military personnel, particularly those who knew nothing about me, but believed the First Amendment was not just a catch phrase and protected insensitive jerks as well as everyone else. And the week after the remark when I entered my Greek history class, the hundred plus students spontaneously applauded me, probably the finest moment in my teaching career. In contrast, I received very little support from the approximately fourteen hundred faculty, many of whom jumped on the bandwagon of those demanding termination. The Faculty Senate, a sort of academic Weimar Parliament, finally issued a tepid defense of free speech, at which debate everyone whom I had offended in the last thirty years popped up to proclaim what a jerk I was. Their statement on free speech seemed to exclude me. Most disappointing were the members of my own department, some of whom I had worked with for three decades. Of some two dozen members four said anything to me at all. It is not at all clear to me why successful revolutionaries even bother to shoot the intellectuals. Meanwhile, an outraged community was demanding that I be fired by the university, and state legislators, rarely a group noted for its deep thinking, were threatening the university’s funding. The university administration never even hinted at termination, not because of any commitment to principle, but because they knew full well it would go to court and they would lose. Presumably because of fear of a lawsuit, the university was very emphatic about the “process” by which I would be judged and punished, causing me to think immediately of Stalin’s show trials. I adamantly refused any suggestion that involved my classes or my pay, but the university’s position was that I should be suspended for a semester without pay, a serious economic hardship for someone who makes only $45,000 after thirty years of teaching. In order to escape the growing stress I proposed a letter of reprimand, which would have no material effect on me. I have been led to believe that there was apparently a division within the central administration, with the President, William Gordon, who also wanted this ended, agreeable to a reprimand and the Provost, Brian Foster, with whom I had already clashed over other free speech issues, demanding more serious punishment. I will never know whether it was threats of legal action against the university by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (a group to be cherished by every real academic) or something much more indelicate that resolved the issue in favor of a reprimand, but the university agreed to the reprimand. In my desperation to get out from under this, however, I foolishly allowed them to insert “warnings” about my behavior, thus setting myself up for future harassment, which has now come to pass. The characterizations of my alleged behavior were either completely bogus or laughable; I was, for example, scolded for “threatening the life of a colleague” because I had publicly stated that the dean of libraries was so incompetent that he ought to be shot. The Provost accused me of this with a perfectly straight face. I am now ashamed that I gave in and did not take the university to court over infringement of my free speech. For thirty years I had been mouthing off about free speech, concerning which I take an extreme position (anything that does not create an immediate physical danger), but when the heat was turned up, I ran away. It is very disappointing to discover that ones character is nowhere near as strong as one had assumed. Perhaps in my younger days I would have fought, but now in my fifties, I just could not take the stress, and my wife was terrified that we would be bankrupted if I went to court. Still, I failed at a crucial moment in my life and ate far more crow than I should have. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education urged me to accept absolutely no punishment and take the university to court, promising that I would never hear the end of it otherwise. They were right. In the fall of 2002 the chair of my department, Jane Slaughter, a feminist who did not care for me even before my remarks made her life more miserable, issued a negative post-tenure report on me, stating that even my teaching was found wanting. Odd, since I have been drawing into my ancient history courses enrollments typically three to four times greater than my colleagues and had won the university’s major teaching award a few years earlier. Student support for me had been overwhelming. I had agreed not to teach Western Civ in the spring (to spare those delicate young minds my offensive words), and she arbitrarily decided that I would not teach it again, though I had successfully taught this course every semester for thirty years. This semester the harassment from the Provost and my department chair has become steady, as I am accused of sexual harassment and professional misconduct on the basis of arguments the average American would find entirely risible. According to the Provost, for example, my use of vulgar language anytime anywhere in the world constitutes professional misconduct, a gross assault on my free speech. Well, the drones and the ribbon clerks win. Rather than suing these people in a case that I would almost certainly win, I am retiring at the end of this fall semester. I love being in classes and teaching is part of my identity, but one can only take so much crap, and I am thoroughly sick of benefiting my department with huge enrollments and getting nothing in return but constant harassment and a salary that would be unacceptable to someone right out of graduate school.But then, my whole experience is hardly atypical, as we all make our way through John Ashcroft’s America. The republic is in far more trouble than I have been

View from a Colleague (#5319) by David Farber on November 29, 2002 at 8:13 PMAs one of Professor Berthold’s colleagues I read with sadness his twisted version of events and his attacks on principled members of the University of New Mexico community. Why didn’t you ask someone in his department about his behavior? Professor Berthold is not quite the hero he makes himself out to be. I served on his post-tenure review committee. Over his thirty years at the university the man has made a terrible record. The reason he received almost no support from the 1400 faculty at the university is because he is a professional joke who, since tenure, has published almost nothing, guided no graduate students, done almost no departmental service, participated in almost no professional activities, and who has consistently said and done stupid and embarrassing things. He has offended almost everyone in his department, and over the years has made many sexist or crude and obscene comments about his colleagues. Women in the department recently formally protested his behavior (and their concerns were most definitely not laughable). As for Bethold’s teaching record, his undergraduate teaching evaluations are roughly average for the department and others have similar enrollments (requiring very little work helps keep his enrollments up). He received his one teaching award under highly unusual circumstances. Finally, I should note that if Professor Berthold’s salary were converted to an hourly rate, he would probably be the highest paid member of the department. His remarks on September 11th—and he made more than one—were, as he himself indicates, typically immature and reckless. On campus, Berthold’s behavior raised issues of professional conduct, not freedom of speech.

The department chair, Jane Slaughter, handled the entire affair professionally. She, not Berthold, is the real hero of this story. She publicly defended academic freedom to community members and kept a level head despite Berthold’s hysterical personal attacks on her. Freedom of speech is too important an issue to allow Professor Berthold’s half-truthful account to stand unanswered.

View from a colleague (#5332) by Melissa Bokovoy on November 30, 2002 at 6:59 PM I wish to thank Professor David Farber, a member of my own department, for pointing out some of the distortions that Associate Professor Richard Berthold wrote in his self serving and fictional account of his trials and tribulations at the University of New Mexico. The Department of History, the Faculty Senate, and the President of the University of New Mexico are all on the public record defending Professor’s Berthold freedom of speech. No one defended Berthold’s freedom of speech more vigorously than our current chair, Professor Jane Slaughter. Her credentials as a defender of faculty rights and freedoms over the last twenty-five years, some as chair of the faculty’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, is beyond reproach. As Professor Farber states, “Professor Slaughter is the real hero of the story.” As Professor Farber reveals, Berthold’s case is not an example of someone being punished for speaking the “truth” but a case of a tenured professor who retired in a place, at the Associate Professor level, for more than 20 years and who, under the new system of post-tenure review, was revealed to be deficient in two of the three areas that constitute our jobs, research and professional service, and average for the department in the third category, undergraduate and graduate teaching. Berthold was one of four tenured faculty members in history to undergo post-tenure peer review this year. Berthold’s bitterness toward the university, second-rate according to his assessment, and his own failings drive his agenda. A promising young scholar thirty years ago, Berthold ended up in a place that he believed was beneath him and he retired in place once he received tenure. He has made this fact known to all who are willing to listen, whether it is in the classroom, in his weekly column in the university paper (so much for shutting down his freedom of speech since his column is still published), or in conversations with his new and not so new colleagues. All of us are familiar with the Bertholds in the profession. Professor Lynn Hunt, President of the American Historical Association, in her recent column in the September issue of the AHA Perspectives describes faculty members like Berthold. She wrote, “I am sure that you have stories at least as appalling as mine of faculty who never attend departmental meetings, who refuse to teach anything outside their own area of specialization, who neglect to develop a course syllabus before term starts, who cancel classes the first or last week of term with insouciance, who fail to show up for their office hours or even their final examinations, who routinely harass students sexually or otherwise—and never suffer any penalties at all. . . . “ Berthold never suffered any penalties for his conduct or his substandard performance. His decision to retire is based solely on the fact that he doesn’t want to work hard at his job and his colleagues finally called him on this fact. This fact is not as heroic as his self-proclaimed martyrdom, which probably allowed him to negotiate a nice little severance package from the university. We are all the richer for it.

Melissa Bokovoy Regents’ Lecturer Associate Professor of History University of New Mexico

art eckstein, professor at university of maryland, at 9:45 am EDT on July 27, 2007

Ward, UT: not needed

” .. if the academy leans left, it is because our applicant pools (both faculty and graduate student) do the same ..”

Yet another pedantic, 750-word “I hate David Horowitz and accountability to the public” diatribe, as predictable as death and taxes.

I’d love to bore people as much as the “unapologically one-sided” with a 25,000-word monograph. But being working-class, I have to actually produce something useful today. In brief:

How many ways can one say, Mr. Churchill, UT, and their kind are not needed in academia? Their kind is grossly oversupplied in the academic labor market.

Yet, flying in the face of classical economics, academic costs rise above the average rate of inflation. It is sheer insanity.

Students need to think critically? After 18 years of “The Simpsons” — their entire lifespans — first-year students need lessons in how to be cynical, sarcastic, and snarky, viz. Mr. Churchill and his kind? That is ridiculous and self-serving (Ward’s favorite serving).

Social science higher-ed leans left? If one is talking about the academic deadwood like Mr. Churchill — yes. OMG! UT has accidently revealed a real problem — no diversity, no standards, no accountability to the public.

CU’s president noted that Mr. Churchill, confronted with evidence of academic fraud, refused to be held accountable. This, as opposed to Mike Nifong, who had the decency to admit his mistakes.

Mr. Churchill, his kind, and their allies will never voluntarily surrender their vise-grip on the public purse, which includes legal ownership of public academia.

They have caused public academia to become bankrupt financially, intellectually, and morally. It should be taken away from them, by any means necessary.

BTW: a UT-definition of “troll” — someone who has actually considers differing viewpoints, thoughtfully analyzes rather than knee-jerk criticizes, can use a calculator accurately, and has the common sense to dismiss those who do not or cannot.

Buzz, at 11:00 am EDT on July 27, 2007

Like Mr. Lewis, I was struck by UT’s blithe assertion that he has “no idea” why Churchill was hired, tenured, or promoted by the University of Colorado and that, in any event, he does not really care. Such purposeful ignorance and lack of curiousity must make it easier to personally attack those who raise concerns about the politicization of higher education without having to actually address their arguments and evidence.

Al, at 1:55 pm EDT on July 27, 2007

Effrontery, Puffery, Insularity

UT,

The academy finds itself with someone looking over its shoulder and your pique doesn’t change the fact. Until the academy can police itself someone else will do it.

Pub, at 11:10 pm EDT on July 27, 2007

Freedom for what?

When the outrageous cartoons of the Holy Prophet were published in a Danish newspaper and Muslims throughout the world objected to it, the Western World retorted that it was “freedom of speech and expression". Now that a Western professor writes something bad about the US actions around the world they are up in arms against him. May I ask whether the FREEDOMS for Westerners are only for bashing non-westerners and not for bashing Western actions?

awabnavi, at 7:55 am EDT on July 28, 2007

Eric Cheyfitz

In a recent Cornell publication, Professor Chefitz, author of a book on “the poetry of imperialism” claimed that no questions of any sort about Churchill had ever been raised before 2005. (Cornell Chronicle, March 6, 2007) If this is an example of the quality of Chefitz’s scholarship in his report defending Churchill, then CU doesn’t have to worry about one little thing from the Cheyfitz direction.

Cheyfitz also gave lengthy testimony for his version of the case before the CU committee on the case; obviously, they didn’t accept his version, but it’s not as if he didn’t get a chance to present his defense of Churchill to the committee.

To awabnavi:

Churchill isn’t being fired for anything he said politically. His outrageous political statements led the University that had protected his fraudulent academic conduct for 15 years for political reasons to cease protecting that fraudulent academic work—for political reasons. THIS case doesn’t make your point. You should, rather, look to the University of Tehran, where last spring dozens of professors WERE dismissed for political reasons—they were too liberal.

art eckstein, professor at maryland, at 12:00 pm EDT on July 28, 2007

Hello to All My Fans

To Faculty Brat: You’re right. I’m wrong. It truly is a black and white world without nuance, one in which we can judge entire groups of people “wrong” even on topics (such as the success of welfare reform) where the experts remain divided. Countless bookshelves could be filled with the work of scholars who have studied, dissected, and disagreed on the many issues regarding Reagan’s conduct of the Cold War or Bush the First’s conduct of the Gulf War. But I guess the efforts of these writers were and are in vain because you’ve got it all figure out. Congratulations.

To all my other friends, the usual suspects: You know, nobody makes you read my “pedantic diatribes". Feel free to skip them if they raise your blood pressure.

As for Ward, sorry, but I really don’t care about the internal politics of the University of Colorado. To me this was never about Ward Churchill or the folks in Boulder. It’s about the broader attack on tenure and the efforts of the noise machine to destroy the best system of higher education ever created.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 1:20 pm EDT on July 28, 2007