Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUniversity of Colorado Set To Fire Ward Churchill
On Tuesday, July 24, the University of Colorado Board of Regents will decide whether to accept the recommendation of CU President (and former Republican senator) Hank Brown, and fire CU Professor Ward Churchill. It's not likely that Brown, one of the shrewdest (and most conservative) politicians Colorado has produced, would recommend the firing unless he was already sure the Regents would back him up. So it's a very good bet that the Regents will indeed give Churchill the axe. The only thing that might change their minds is an outpouring of public opinion supporting a professor's right to voice unpopular views.
The Regents' decision is not merely a local affair. It has enormous impact on the whole country. That gives you the right -- and the responsibility -- to let them know what you think. The chair of the University of Colorado Board of Regents is Patricia Hayes. You can write to her at: Patricia.Hayes@cu.edu.
Why should you bother? It's still a rare occasion when a tenured professor is fired because he is an outspoken leftist. But every time a witchhunt is successful, it encourages other right-wingers to go after their favorite target. It brings the next witchhunt closer and increases the odds that it will succeed.
u003c/span>I said I'd prefer a
button reading, "I am Next." But you never know who will be next. There is
nothing very special about Colorado. It can happen anywhere. The
witchhunters may be coming to a campus near you. That's one reason the fate of
Ward Churchill matters to you.u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\"> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">The visible fallout from the
Churchill case -- the future attacks on leftist academics -- is only the tip of
the iceberg. The bigger effect is one we'll never see or hear: the silence of
all those, on and off campuses, who start censoring themselves, not speaking
their minds completely and directly, avoiding controversial topics in their
teaching and research, because they see which way the political wind blows. u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\"> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">Right after the 9/11 attack,
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that people had better "watch what they
say."u003cspan> u003c/span>That's the same message the
CU Regents will send across the country by firing Churchill. The impact of this
chilling effect is invisible and incalculable, but it is very real. And it will
directly affect your freedom to hear the diversity of opinions, including the
most radical opinions, that our ailing democracy needs so badly. That's another
reason the fate of Ward Churchill matters to you, no matter where you live.u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\"> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>Of course
the chilling wind would blow coldest across our college campuses. The quality of
education in this country would take a blow. The efforts we profs make to engage
students in critical thinking would be compromised as faculty avoid potentially
damaging conflicts. The long-term trend toward turning colleges into vocational
job training centers would get a boost. So would the powerful forces promoting
what they call "politically neutral" indoctrination in Western culture and
values.",1] ); //-->I'm an outspoken leftie professor at the University of Colorado too, so I've got a personal stake in this. Someone once asked me to wear a big button that said, "I am Ward Churchill." I said I'd prefer a button reading, "I am Next." But you never know who will be next. There is nothing very special about Colorado. It can happen anywhere. The witchhunters may be coming to a campus near you. That's one reason the fate of Ward Churchill matters to you.
The visible fallout from the Churchill case -- the future attacks on leftist academics -- is only the tip of the iceberg. The bigger effect is one we'll never see or hear: the silence of all those, on and off campuses, who start censoring themselves, not speaking their minds completely and directly, avoiding controversial topics in their teaching and research, because they see which way the political wind blows.
Right after the 9/11 attack, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that people had better "watch what they say." That's the same message the CU Regents will send across the country by firing Churchill. The impact of this chilling effect is invisible and incalculable, but it is very real. And it will directly affect your freedom to hear the diversity of opinions, including the most radical opinions, that our ailing democracy needs so badly. That's another reason the fate of Ward Churchill matters to you, no matter where you live.
Of course the chilling wind would blow coldest across our college campuses. The quality of education in this country would take a blow. The efforts we profs make to engage students in critical thinking would be compromised as faculty avoid potentially damaging conflicts. The long-term trend toward turning colleges into vocational job training centers would get a boost. So would the powerful forces promoting what they call "politically neutral" indoctrination in Western culture and values.
u003c/span>Do we want our universities
to graduate incurious and obedient functionaries rather than creative and bold
leaders?u003c/span>u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\"> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>You may
hesitate to weigh in on the case of the right wingers vs. Ward Churchill because
you don't know the facts. After all, the faculty's Research Misconduct Committee
produced a voluminous report detailing his supposed misconduct. It's the basis
for firing Churchill. u003c/span>u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>u003c/span> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>Was the
committee fair and accurate in its assessment? To be honest, I don't know. How
could I? I'm not an expert in Native American Studies. I don't have the
knowledge or experience to make an informed judgment. But neither did the
committee, nor anyone else in the University bureacracy who has brought
Churchill to the academic gallows. There were two experts in Native American
Studies on the committee for a while, but they quit (some say they were hounded
off) because they were trying to give the matter a fair hearing, and it seemed
to them that was not what the committee had in mind.u003c/span>u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>u003c/span> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">So a professor is about to be
axed for research misconduct even though no one with any expertise in his field
has substantiated the charges. In fact a number of experts in Native American
Studies who examined the committee's report found that it had numerous flaws and
seemed to reflect the selective use of evidence to advance a predetermined
objective. They found no evidence of gross errors, which is what "research
misconduct" means, in Churchill's work. u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\"> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">To be sure, Churchill has his
critics in his academic field. So do I. That's what academia is all about. But
as Eric Cheyfitz of Cornell University, who closely studied the
committee's report, wrote, it "turns what is a debate about controversial issues
of identity and genocide in Indian studies into an indictment of one position in
that debate." If you start firing professors because some of their colleagues
don't like their research, most all of us would have to go. And if you take
apart the work of a productive scholar, looking for every little flaw you can
find (a misplaced citation here, a small misquote there), most all of us would
have to go. But that's not research misconduct.",1] ); //-->Do we want our universities to graduate incurious and obedient functionaries rather than creative and bold leaders?
You may hesitate to weigh in on the case of the right wingers vs. Ward Churchill because you don't know the facts. After all, the faculty's Research Misconduct Committee produced a voluminous report detailing his supposed misconduct. It's the basis for firing Churchill.
Was the committee fair and accurate in its assessment? To be honest, I don't know. How could I? I'm not an expert in Native American Studies. I don't have the knowledge or experience to make an informed judgment. But neither did the committee, nor anyone else in the University bureacracy who has brought Churchill to the academic gallows. There were two experts in Native American Studies on the committee for a while, but they quit (some say they were hounded off) because they were trying to give the matter a fair hearing, and it seemed to them that was not what the committee had in mind.
So a professor is about to be axed for research misconduct even though no one with any expertise in his field has substantiated the charges. In fact a number of experts in Native American Studies who examined the committee's report found that it had numerous flaws and seemed to reflect the selective use of evidence to advance a predetermined objective. They found no evidence of gross errors, which is what "research misconduct" means, in Churchill's work.
To be sure, Churchill has his critics in his academic field. So do I. That's what academia is all about. But as Eric Cheyfitz of Cornell University, who closely studied the committee's report, wrote, it "turns what is a debate about controversial issues of identity and genocide in Indian studies into an indictment of one position in that debate." If you start firing professors because some of their colleagues don't like their research, most all of us would have to go. And if you take apart the work of a productive scholar, looking for every little flaw you can find (a misplaced citation here, a small misquote there), most all of us would have to go. But that's not research misconduct.
u003c/span>u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">u003cspan>u003c/span> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>Churchill's
scholarship as well as his politics has always been controversial. Critics
charged for many years that he wasn't adhering strictly to all the academic
rules. But CU officials ignored those charges for most of those years. (In fact
they granted him tenure even though he did not have a Ph.D and his work was
somewhat unconventional, because they wanted a star to show their commitment to
diversity. Now they are using the same unconventionality to hound Churchill out
-- and raise grave questions about their concern for diversity.)u003cspan> u003c/span>u003c/span>u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>u003cspan>u003c/span>u003c/span> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>CU officials
only became concerned about the quality of Churchill's work after right-wingers
discovered his now-famous essay that called corporate functionaries working in
the World Trade Center on 9/11 "little Eichmanns." That triggered an avalanche
of conservative pressure on CU to fire Churchill. u003c/span>u003cspan>Of course
the University administrators could not come out and say they were investigating
him for unpopular political opinions in the post-9/11 era. So they got the
Research Misconduct Committee to go through his writings with a fine-tooth comb.
Lo and behold, they found the "evidence" they were looking for. u003cspan> u003c/span>u003c/span>u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt\">u003cspan>u003cspan>u003c/span>u003c/span> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">There's a lot more to the
case. Charges of plagiarism rest on weak evidence and strained interpretations
that don't withstand serious scrutiny. The University administrators broke their
own system's rules in a number of ways. Most importantly, they let a massive
campaign by outsiders -- conservatives from across the country -- influence what
should be strictly an internal decision-making process. u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">",1] ); //-->Churchill's scholarship as well as his politics has always been controversial. Critics charged for many years that he wasn't adhering strictly to all the academic rules. But CU officials ignored those charges for most of those years. (In fact they granted him tenure even though he did not have a Ph.D and his work was somewhat unconventional, because they wanted a star to show their commitment to diversity. Now they are using the same unconventionality to hound Churchill out -- and raise grave questions about their concern for diversity.)
CU officials only became concerned about the quality of Churchill's work after right-wingers discovered his now-famous essay that called corporate functionaries working in the World Trade Center on 9/11 "little Eichmanns." That triggered an avalanche of conservative pressure on CU to fire Churchill. Of course the University administrators could not come out and say they were investigating him for unpopular political opinions in the post-9/11 era. So they got the Research Misconduct Committee to go through his writings with a fine-tooth comb. Lo and behold, they found the "evidence" they were looking for.
There's a lot more to the case. Charges of plagiarism rest on weak evidence and strained interpretations that don't withstand serious scrutiny. The University administrators broke their own system's rules in a number of ways. Most importantly, they let a massive campaign by outsiders -- conservatives from across the country -- influence what should be strictly an internal decision-making process.
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">It looks like President Hank
Brown is catering to those outsiders. He has rejected his own faculty advisory
committee's recommendation to discipline and suspend Churchill, opting instead
to go for out-and-out firing. u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\"> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">The irony is that once the
Regents do give Churchill the axe, he will go to court and argue that his
contractual rights were violated. Both sides will trot out their experts. In the
end, some judges who know nothing at all about Native American Studies will have
to decide whether there is compelling evidence of research misconduct here.
Since the whole case of the right wingers vs. Churchill rests on political
animus, the outcome will probably depend on how conservative those judges are.
If it ever reaches Supreme Court, we can unfortunately pretty well predict how
it will go. u003cspan> u003c/span>u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">u003cspan>u003c/span> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">The last chance to stop that
slide down the slippery legal slope is to convince the Regents that it's not in
their best interests to fire Churchill. They need to know that the whole world
is watching. They need to hear from you.u003cspan>
u003c/span>Again, the chair of the Board of Regents is Patricia Hayes. You can write
to her at: u003ca hrefu003d\"mailto:Patricia.Hayes@cu.edu\" targetu003d\"_blank\" onclicku003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\">Patricia.Hayes@cu.eduu003c/a>. u003cspan>If you want email addresses for the other
Regents, go to u003ca hrefu003d\"https://www.cu.edu/regents/RgntsPUB0101.html\" targetu003d\"_blank\" onclicku003d\"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\">https://www.cu.edu/regentsu003cWBR>/RgntsPUB0101.htmlu003c/a>.
u003c/span>u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\"> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\"> u003c/p>
u003cp styleu003d\"margin:0in 0in 0pt;text-indent:0.5in\">Ira Chernus is Professor of
Religious Studies at the University of
Colorado at Boulder and author of ",1] ); //-->It looks like President Hank Brown is catering to those outsiders. He has rejected his own faculty advisory committee's recommendation to discipline and suspend Churchill, opting instead to go for out-and-out firing.
The irony is that once the Regents do give Churchill the axe, he will go to court and argue that his contractual rights were violated. Both sides will trot out their experts. In the end, some judges who know nothing at all about Native American Studies will have to decide whether there is compelling evidence of research misconduct here. Since the whole case of the right wingers vs. Churchill rests on political animus, the outcome will probably depend on how conservative those judges are. If it ever reaches Supreme Court, we can unfortunately pretty well predict how it will go.
The last chance to stop that slide down the slippery legal slope is to convince the Regents that it's not in their best interests to fire Churchill. They need to know that the whole world is watching. They need to hear from you. Again, the chair of the Board of Regents is Patricia Hayes. You can write to her at: Patricia.Hayes@cu.edu. If you want email addresses for the other Regents, go to https://www.cu.edu/regents/RgntsPUB0101.html.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu
24 Comments so far
Show Allvlad_ejd
I just read (most) of that link you got.
Why does the author criticize the criticism of Native American mascots. I've heard lots of people use the same accurate analogies. I've also met Natives who were for and against Native American imagery for mascots. As well as indifferent.
So I don't know why this is in an article trying to cut down Churchill's work. Since many people use the square on analogies.
Of the 4 books of Churchill I've read, 3 before Bush did his 2000 coup, they all seemed rather well done. Be it "Fantasies of the Master Race" or "The COINTELPRO Papers".
Nothing made up there. Oh, I don't know. Maybe every single nugget out of 10,000 is not in its place, but no scholar can stand up to such scrutiny. Any attempt to "totally discredit Chuchill" are mere attempts at wiping out the truths in his books.
Whether he is "Indian" or not? Kind of besides the point. Especially since "blood quantum" was an invention of the Bureau of Indian Affairs back when they were setting up the concentration camps, er, excuse me "reservations".
Even as non-Chuchill Native fans have accurately called them. Less Indians, less land to allocate.
Before that it used to be that, like any Nation, First Nations membership might be offered to anyone they choose. Today whichever First Nation can still use whatever criteria they choose. They are sovereign afterall.
John P. LaVelle, a law professor at the University of New Mexico, offers the following review of Churchill's book, "Indians Are Us?":
http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/american-indian-quarterly.pdf
He goes into a little more detail about Churchill's misconduct, offering specific examples.
Churchill's a fraud and irresponsible scholar who has gotten away with fooling scholars, students and universities for far too long. UCB should have sacked him a long time ago.
hi vlad...
This letter from the ACLU is far more convincing and alarming information...and reveals the political agendas in progress, and illuminates the damage that will be done in "repressing academic freedom and chilling public debate" :
http://www.aclu-co.org/news/pressrelease/release_ward_churchill_letter_07_19_07.htm
excerpts:
"Only one member of the five-member investigative committee believed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction, and a majority of the appeals panel concluded that termination was not warranted. Despite these conclusions, the University President has recommended termination, thus urging the same result as the elected officials who publicly called for Professor Churchill's termination in 2005."
...
"Accepting President Brown's recommendation in these circumstances poses too great a risk that other members of the academic community will respond by choosing to silence themselves or temper the public expression of their views out of fear that they, too, will be subjected to detailed fishing expeditions and censure. Such a result not only undermines academic freedom, it also diminishes the range and breadth of public debate that is vital to a flourishing democracy. We urge you to reject President Brown's recommendation."
(Sincerely,
Anthony Romero
Cathryn Hazouri
Executive Director Executive Director
ACLU ACLU of Colorado)
...
In response to the rest of your comments, i'll just leave you with these juxtaposition that might show just what sort of bastardization of academics exists in the US:
Recently Andrew Card received an honorary degree from UMass after being a good salesman of war ( i.e. liar and lapdog) for the Republicrats.
Maybe writing 20 books is a slighty more rational criteria for bypassing the game of academic credentials, which doesn't have anything to do with excesses of PCdom, though one could certainly argue in the case above that a "good ol' boy network" is firmly in place.
To podovic:
Yes, I did read the article. The timing of this is irrelevant. The controversy over the remarks is what called attention to Churchill's misconduct, but he had effectively gotten away with it until then.
And yes, I have read some of his work and heard some of his speeches, and equating him with Sean Hannity is quite simple. He frequently makes claims that are not supported by evidence, fails to cite his sources and makes personal attacks -- often against actual Native American activists and scholars who have worked to improve the conditions of Native peoples in this country. Furthermore, he confuses polemic with scholarship. Does that sound like another inflammatory opinion leader with dubious qualifications we know? (I say "dubious qualifications" because Hannity has no college degree and no professional experience as a reporter or editor, but he gets his own show on national TV. Similarly, Churchill only has an MA in communication, but he was able to get tenure as a professor of ethnic studies.)
Churchill is a product of the excesses of PC in the 90s. That's how an unqualified person such as he was able to get such a prestigious job and get away with offenses that would have had a P&T committee sending a pink slip to any other person.
I'm not excoriating Churchill for his views. I'm excoriating him because he got a high-paying job and makes all kinds of money by defrauding well-meaning but credulous people.
Instead of simply taking Ira Chernus' word for it, I would suggest you actually read the report. This wasn't a case of the black man being convicted by an all-white jury; UCB went out of its way to gather a diverse committee, which included Native American scholars.
The report is here:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/ChurchillStandingCmteReport.pdf
Hey vlad_ejd,
DID YOU EVEN Read the article above??
"CU officials only became concerned about the quality of Churchill's work after right-wingers discovered his now-famous essay that called corporate functionaries working in the World Trade Center on 9/11 "little Eichmanns." That triggered an avalanche of conservative pressure on CU to fire Churchill. "
"Charges of plagiarism rest on weak evidence and strained interpretations that don't withstand serious scrutiny."
"...if you take apart the work of a productive scholar, looking for every little flaw you can find (a misplaced citation here, a small misquote there), most all of us would have to go. But that's not research misconduct."
"
Churchill has written over 20 books and 150 essays...
Try reading some and you will find it impossible to equate Churchill with Sean Hannity, who btw even though he's probably an easily proven caucasian male would probably be seen selling out his grandmother on national television before joining the front lines of ANY human rights struggle.
Here's a list of numerous articles W.C. has written for Z magazine, which is host to other notable scholars and thinkers from Naomi Klein, Norman Solomon, Amy Goodman, Edward Said, Vandana Shiva, Noam Chomsky, etc etc.
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=62
And here's W.C.'s own account of the UC charges:
http://www.wardchurchill.net/
...
My personal opinion on the matter is I WISH I had the opportunity to experience inspired professors in institutional settings who had the ability to piss me off for reasons other than their spinelessness, mediocrity, silence, etc.
Churchill, by contrast, simply shouts down anyone who doesn't agree with him; he's a left-wing Sean Hannity.
I agree, but no one is demanding Sean leave broadcasting, or Sean's spawn, who do work in education! They shout down progressive thinking and keep their jobs.
Let's keep things fair.
"It's still a rare occasion when a tenured professor is fired because he is an outspoken leftist."
Churchill wasn't fired for his views. He was fired because he has repeatedly committed plagiarism, shown a disregard for facts, misrepresented facts to fit his views, failed to distinguish between scholarship and polemic and denigrated Native American scholars and leaders. On top of that, he's not even Native American! He's never been able to show any Native ancestry whatsoever. Hardly anyone in the Native American community supports Churchill.
Grant Crowell filmed a video of Churchill getting pissed off at reporters in Hawaii (with fellow polemicists/professors Ruth Hsu and Haunani-Kay Trask by his side and sadly duped people in the background) that was rather interesting. It's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN0ZxytJ1G4
Occasions when tenured professors are fired for left-wing views are nearly non-existent. My mom (who's only tenure-track) teaches anthropology in Indiana and talks about gay, transgender and race issues in the class. The difference between how she approaches these subjects and how Ward Churchill does is that she's understanding with regard to students who might not agree. Churchill, by contrast, simply shouts down anyone who doesn't agree with him; he's a left-wing Sean Hannity.
I wonder if the same support for academic freedom would be shown to a professor that preached that minorities were inferior, or that women were not as capable in sciences. It seems to me that Lawrence Sumner of Harvard was just hounded out of his position at Harvard by progressives that didn't like what he said about women maybe wired different from men. If you are going to support academic freedom for unpopular opinions, then you need to support for ALL opinions,especially the ones you disagree with.
It doesn't matter if Ward Churchill is an ass. He is quite clearly being hounded out because he is an irritating lefty. Any critique of his academic integrity is unlikely to occur in a politically motivated stunt that comes from the same ilk who show no compunction about turning Afghanistan in to the world's largest mine field and who order white phosphorus dropped on an entire city in Iraq. These are the "No Child Left Behind" con artists who have been inveighing against the 1960s ever since 1970.
Churchill is being fired for his political opinions, and any assertion to the contrary is naive wishful thinking.
Therefore, regardless of his personal shortcomings, he deserves our support. Freedom of speech isn't worth a damn if it accrues only to nice people and those with whom we agree.
Patricia Hayes, Chair
University of Colorado Board of Regents
Patricia.Hayes@cu.edu
Dear Ms. Hayes,
As a metis American Indian, I've been following the racist/jingoist campaign to discredit and hound Ward Churchill from his tenured position. While I make no claims for, nor have any personal knowledge of, his authentic American Indian status, I know from the orally-documented experience of my own family that many persons of Cherokee descent "passed" as white to escape the invidious racism prevalent during the period before and after the US Civil War. This was somewhat easier for many Cherokees than it was for other Indians, because there had been centuries of intermarriage between them and the white settlers around them. The assertion that his claim of Indian heritage is false because he has no paper documents to prove it is ludicrous and smacks of witch hunt.
His most egregious crime, it would seem, is that he's a somewhat annoying (but popular) blowhard who's managed to offend the right wing, who've done a hatchet job on him as thorough as that of the infamous Lizzie Borden. In fact, I note that your own resume includes some of that same background, which might seem to impeach your own ability to form an impartial judgment.
It would also seem suspicious that the two persons on the academic committee which investigated his supposed failures in scholarship who actually knew anything about his field quit, evidently because they thought he was being railroaded.
And it would seem to reflect badly on the University of Colorado if this contretemps were to become a cause celebre through intemperate and hasty actions by the Regents to discharge him, casting doubt upon CU's reputation and integrity in the larger world to appease a particular constituency whose star seems to be on the decline lately. Do you really want that to be your own legacy of service to the university?
Thank you,
Lee Anne
What pathetic and lame attacks on Churchill! Let's just stick to the real picture here rather than spreading personal blather without any facts ("I met him... and he's a jerk"). Aacck! I would have expected more intelligence from commondreams readers, but then of course maybe these are just lobby puppets of the Republicrat choir who DON'T read!
The scenario here is that the University in Colorado is in deep sh*t ( and it's hilarious watching them squirm), because an angry and articulate and highly productive scholar continues to draw more and more students and global citizenry into sharing his perspectives that the imperial and colonial and racist roots of many elected and non-elected powers of this country are nauseating, armed and dangerous.
Pressure on the Board at UC to fire him continues, and either way it's only going to become a bigger stage for Churchill to
illuminate the atrocities ( against native americans in particular ) that have inspired and driven him to become a teacher in the first place.
But for the sake of academics in this country, lets hope that educators everywhere stand up and discourage the regents from firing him. One because it would be a complete disgrace that internationally will be recognized as the ongoing denial of US culture to acknowlegde its historical abuses of power, and secondly because as Ira points out, there will be other right wing manipulations of academia to fit their pathetic ignorance and their political agendas ... if we let them.
I remember him simply telling the story of how Native Americans were treated in the 1800s and how nothing has changed today. His audience was trying to shout him down.
Everything he was saying was the truth!
I have not met Ward Churchill, but I know a number of people who have and the comments by Inri and Hoohoo are about par for the course. I am an academic, and therefore very sensitive to the importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech in general. However, as I understand it Churchill is being dismissed for violating academic integrity, not for his political views. If he is a plagiarist, he deserves to be dismissed. I'll continue to defend his right to speak, but I cannot support someone who refuses to follow the most important rule in academia.
What I really regret about this is that this guy handed the wingnut witch hunters a victory on a silver platter. He was exactly what they wanted, a corrupt, left wing academic. This is a warning to all of us in education at any level -- if we speak up on controversial topics, we first better make sure we're not living in a glass house.
My oh my, lots of defenders of academic freedom here, who no doubt call themselves "liberal" - just like the "Progressive" magazine's Matt Rothchild who that joined in the hounding of Norman Finkelstien out of DePaul.
I agree that we must be weary of future acts of persecution. The people who went after Churchill did such with full knowledge that he would be an easy target. They would never try on their first shot to get a "reputable" academic since they pose too hard of a target. However just you wait and see who or what they will come after next.... Also the part about self censoring is quite true. I often see people in my discipline striving to limit the questions they ask so as to gain in academic credentials and "not seem too radical" It appears in many disciplines that those who are more proactive in their opinions often get marginalized very quickly. All part of the game no doubt.
And the lawyers will be milking at the teats for years.
Can you remember what brought Ward Churchill to the limelight in the first place? He was right and brave to say so. Whatever he is now, he is a counterbalance to the CU nazis.
I've been ashamed to admit I'm a CU grad for some time...the football team excesses and rape scandals, reactionary regents, the university administration getting away with firing those whose opinions it dislikes. The way it treated Adrienne Anderson, a voice for environmental justice in this conservative state, was absolutely shameful.
On the other hand...Ward Churchill is an under-achieving, self-serving phony. He should never have been given a teaching position, let alone tenure. I wish he'd grow a conscience, resign, and permanently STFU instead of allowing witch-hunt firing precedents to be set in a clearly politicized ousting.
As a graduate of the U of Colorado, my heart skipped a beat when I read the headline. Then, I re-read it and was horribly disappointed to see that they were "set to fire" him, whereas I thought they were "going to set fire to" him.
The man has violated just about every precept of academic competence and intellectual honesty I ever learned. This is not about censorship but about the duty of every academic to pursue the truth -- a duty he has shirked throughout his career.
I feel much the same way as inri porter. I have met him too, and initially I liked him, but later I saw his bullying behavior and realized he is a hypocrite. I will, however, be outside on Boulder campus when the Regents take a break on Tuesday, to let them peacefully know I am in support of academic freedom and against witch hunts and censorship. The Regents are unfortunately mostly white, male, and Republican - not the kind who really give a shit what peons like me think.
I don't have any great love for Ward Churchill, but he should be able to keep his job. The question is, why would he want to?
He gets to go around the country, giving speeches at $20,000 a pop, and gets treated like a rock star. My poor slob of a Phd
Brother slaves around in such unimportant work as trying to stamp out parasites in third world countries and makes 1/20 the income of Churchill. And none of the recognition.
The bigger question is why should I pay 20,000 a year to send my daughter somewhere to be indoctrinated in either the left or right? It used to be that a college education taught you how to think on your own. Now the students simply parrot whatever their professors pet theories are.
I can't stand Ward Churchill (and yes, I've met him). He's a jerk. He's also a stone g** d*** liar, a racist, and a plagiarist. He incites violence and creates un-necessary friction. The English language word that best describes him is PIG. He's a trouble-maker. He's trash. He's also much stupider than he...or others...think.
Unfortunately, I dislike censorship even more than I dislike this cheese-headed wretch. We're in enough trouble in this country already; it won't help any to start running professors off of their campuses, even those -- or perhaps especially those -- who are a few beads short of a full rosary. So okay, I'll send an e-mail to the bleeding regents...but it is only because I support my nation's Constitution (what's left of it) and don't feel that now is a good time to start drowning only the kittens that scratch. I am not fond of bumper-sticker jingoism, but here we go: freedom isn't free, and putting up with the Ward Churchills of this poor dying world is one of the ways we pay for the First Amendment: in the long run, it's worth it. I hope.
Start ordering your brown shirts and get ready for some serious Jack London IRON HEEL.
Hoa binh