0
   

CU Prof. should be fired!

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:05 pm
Quote:

Professor faces fraud charges - Experts say he made up facts for his book

By DAVID KELLY
Los Angeles Times

BOULDER, Colo. - University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has come under fire recently for comparing the Sept. 11 victims to Nazis and for questionable claims of Indian ancestry. Now, fellow academics are accusing him of fraud.

Several professors have alleged that in his writings, Churchill distorted the events surrounding a smallpox outbreak among Indians in North Dakota.

"I came across this story of genocide, and I thought: 'Why didn't I hear about this before?' As soon as you read his sources, you realize he is making it up," said Thomas Brown, an assistant professor of sociology at Lamar University who has researched Churchill's work.

Brown was referring to an essay in Churchill's book A Little Matter of Genocide, where he says the U.S. Army distributed blankets infected with smallpox to the Mandan Indians on the upper Missouri River in 1837.

"The blankets had been gathered from a military infirmary in St. Louis, where troops infected with the disease were quarantined," Churchill wrote. "Although the medical practice of the day required the precise opposite procedure, Army doctors ordered the Mandans to disperse once they exhibited signs of the infection. The result was a pandemic among the Plains Indian nations which claimed at least 125,000 lives."

Churchill cited his source as Russell Thornton, an anthropology professor at the University of California.
Yet Brown found that Thornton's 1987 book -Churchill's alleged source - said nothing about the U.S. Army handing out blankets infected with smallpox.

"I think people can make mistakes in quotations occasionally, but to blatantly misrepresent someone else's work is totally inappropriate,"Thornton said this week.


Churchill has refused numerous requests for comment, and his lawyer did not return calls Friday.

Thornton said there were cases where blankets were used to try to infect Indians, but not in this instance.

"If Churchill has sources that say otherwise, I'd like to see them. But right now I'm his source for this, and it's wrong," he said.

Churchill's writings are being reviewed by CU's interim chancellor to determine if there are grounds for his dismissal. The ethnic studies professor ignited controversy with an essay he wrote after Sept. 11 comparing some who had worked in the World Trade Center to "little Eichmanns"- referring to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi who designed the Holocaust.

Churchill gave a fiery speech at the Boulder campus on Tuesday, vowing to fight for his job. But while many, including the university Board of Regents, question whether a tenured professor can be fired for what he says, academic misconduct is another matter.

John LaVelle, a law professor at the University of New Mexico and a Santee Sioux Indian, has written extensively about Churchill's treatment of history.

LaVelle said the professor repeatedly fabricated a key element of the General Allotment Act of 1887, a measure designed to break up Indian reservations into individual allotments, with the rest of the land sold off to white settlers.

Churchill said the law required tribe members to have 50 percent or more Indian blood to receive a parcel of land. Tribes later imitated this standard in devising tribal enrollment standards, he said.

In numerous essays, Churchill fulminates against this "blood quantum"- likening it to the racial policies of the Nazis and apartheid in South Africa. He even accused Indians of racism.

"The ugly burden of imposing racism is now carried out by the oppressed themselves," he wrote.

The problem, said LaVelle, is that there was no mention of any such blood requirement in the General Allotment Act. The act allowed tribes to set their own standards for membership, he said.

From 1992 until 1997, LaVelle said, Churchill promoted this claim "no fewer than 16 times in 11 essays published in 16 different books."


Critics say Churchill's motives were clear: As long as American Indian tribes required some standard of proof for membership, he would never be admitted.

Churchill has claimed membership in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, but leaders say he has no affiliation with them.

On Friday Chad Smith, principal chief of the 250,000-member Cherokee Nation, said there was no evidence of Churchill having Cherokee heritage and that he was not eligible or citizenship. "The best evidence that he is not an Indian is that he knows so little about Indians,"Smith said. "Indians are super patriots, this is our land. Brian Moss, one of our citizens, was killed in the Pentagon on 9/11, and he disparages these victims."

In a 1978 application for a lecture position in Native American studies at CU and again in a 1990 application to be an associate professor, Churchill claimed to be "American Indian.""Academic fraud concerns me a great deal,"said CU Regent Patricia Hayes. "I believe in tenure, but I also believe we have to do a good job as far as making sure his credentials are in order. The important thing is if he lied on his resume, not if he is an Indian."

------ End of article

By DAVID KELLY

Los Angeles Times


Looks a bit bleak for Ward ... academic fraud and falsification of employment documents pretty much moot any 1st Ammendment argument in defemse of his position with the university. The pity, however, is that he has gained what apparently he was after; notoriety. I think the world was better off when he was obscure.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Feb, 2005 08:22 pm
Quote:
I meant exactly what I said. You can BE it, you just can't SAY it. Its not a prejudice, it's a fact.


Amen. I don't know the rules for saying it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 12:27 am
Lash wrote:
But, nimh's link shows something is either changing there, or the police can't keep up with the neo-Nazis. What they did is against German law--but they got away with it.


Exactly what was against our law ..... and which law Confused
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 09:27 am
nimh wrote:
And the way both politicians and opinion makers discuss things live on TV here (for better or for worse), with van Gogh calling Muslims goatf*ckers and Pim Fortuyn inviting "all the boys of Holland to come check" if he is as bald "below" as on top, would so not fly in America.

Considering the common fates of van Gogh and Fortuyn, I think a little self-censorship might be regarded as extremely prudent.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 09:28 am
Quote:
'Academic freedom'?
Thomas Sowell

February 15, 2005

Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado seems to be enjoying his 15 minutes of infamy for his childish rants against people who were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Others of course resent his cheap shots at the dead, and some are trying to get him fired.

The resulting controversy has wider implications for the understanding -- and misunderstanding -- of what is meant by "academic freedom."

However symptomatic Professor Churchill may be of what is wrong with academia today, his situation has nothing to do with academic freedom. His remarks that provoked so much controversy were not made in a classroom or even on campus.

There are no real grounds for firing him under current rules and practices -- which tells you what is wrong with those rules and practices. Professor Churchill is protected by tenure rules that are a much bigger problem than this one man or this one episode.

In this era of dumbed-down education, when rhetoric has replaced both logic and evidence for many people, some think the issue is "freedom of speech." Indeed, some critics of Professor Churchill have been shouted down by his supporters, in the name of freedom of speech.

Too many people -- some of them judges -- seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences for what you have said. If you believe that, try insulting your boss when you go to work tomorrow. Better yet, try insulting your spouse before going to bed tonight.

While this column is protected by freedom of speech, that does not stop any editor from getting rid of it if he doesn't like what I say. But, even if every editor across the length and breadth of the country refused to carry this column, that would be no violation of my freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not imply a right to an audience. Otherwise the audience would have no right to its own freedom. Editors, movie producers, speakers' bureaus and other intermediaries have every right to decide what they will and will not present to their audiences.

Unfortunately, many of those who talk the loudest and longest about "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom" are in fact trying to justify the imposition of propaganda on a captive audience in our schools and colleges.

At one college, some gutsy students start chanting "OT" -- for "off topic" -- when one of their professors starts making political comments that have nothing to do with the subject of his course.

Should a professor of accounting or chemistry be fired for using up class time to sound off about homelessness or the war in Iraq? Yes!

There is no high moral principle that prevents it. What prevents it are tenure rules that have saddled so many colleges with so many self-indulgent prima donnas who seem to think that they are philosopher kings, when in fact they are often grossly ignorant or misinformed outside the narrow confines of their particular specialty.

Over the years, the notion of academic freedom has expanded beyond autonomy within one's academic field to faculty governance of colleges and universities in general. Thus professors decide whether the institution's endowment can be invested in companies or countries that are out of favor among the anointed, or whether students will be allowed to join fraternities or the Reserve Officers Training Corps.

There is nothing in specialized academic expertise which makes professors' opinions on issues outside their specialty any better than anyone else's opinions. In no other institution -- religious or secular, military or civilian -- are people who make decisions that shape the institution unable to be fired when those decisions lead to bad results.

The combination of tenure and academic self-governance is unique -- and explains much of the atmosphere of self-indulgence and irresponsibility on campus, of which Professor Ward Churchill is just one extreme example. Re-thinking confused notions of "academic freedom" is far more important than firing Professor Churchill and thereby turning a jackass into a martyr.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 09:32 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Considering the common fates of van Gogh and Fortuyn, I think a little self-censorship might be regarded as extremely prudent.

LOL!

<ahem>

<stops laughing, because its highly un-PC here to suggest anything like what Joe says ... no, we should hold the heroes high on their shield of free speech, and never once suggest some prudency in rhetorics, for that would surely just be selling out to the Muslim extremists...>
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 04:19 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Lash wrote:
But, nimh's link shows something is either changing there, or the police can't keep up with the neo-Nazis. What they did is against German law--but they got away with it.


Exactly what was against our law ..... and which law Confused


Walter--

This time if you tell me I'm wrong, it will also mean my source was wrong.

You were my source.

You told me about certain speech--and certain groups --being illegal in Germany. A neo-Nazi group would be verboten--and they were the ones marching and protesting.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 04:36 pm
hey tico

You want to do a close reading/analysis with me of something of Sowell's rather than just pasting them in here in their glorious entirety?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 04:44 pm
Well, Neo-Nazis aren't forbidden per se - we have at least three parties, two of them are even in stae parliaments.

NAZI enblems etc forbidden, programs with Nazi content etc.

That's what these parties eagerly try to avoid and thus arrive the difficulies e.g. to get a ban of these parties by the Federal Constitutionally Court.


I think, however, that a couple of persons got arrested: 50 protesters from the left autonom scene - law is protecting and persucuting both sites (and the right is much cuter in obeying the law than the left).
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 04:56 pm
blatham wrote:
hey tico

You want to do a close reading/analysis with me of something of Sowell's rather than just pasting them in here in their glorious entirety?


Sure .... why not? Whattaya got?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 04:08 pm
On Meet the Press, Pat Buchanan said a lot of the jist of the same things that Churchill got castigated for. Buchanan said that American interventionism was the CAUSE, and not the RESULT of 9/11.

How come this doesn't cause any great conservative caterwauling cacaphony? Is it only wrong when a steenking liberal spouts it?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 04:15 pm
snood wrote:
On Meet the Press, Pat Buchanan said a lot of the jist of the same things that Churchill got castigated for. Buchanan said that American interventionism was the CAUSE, and not the RESULT of 9/11.

How come this doesn't cause any great conservative caterwauling cacaphony? Is it only wrong when a steenking liberal spouts it?


Did Buchanan say the victims of 9/11 deserved what they got?

Huh?

Didn't think so.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 04:19 pm
snood

There's a large and well-orchestrated campaign to discredit universities. What you're seeing is an element of that in this story...Buchanan is irrelevant to the end these folks have in mind.

The notion is to disempower any and all bases of traditional democratic strength, and more generally, to discredit 'liberalism'. So, for example, the black community is targeted with 'compassion' and faith-based initiatives, and with the gay-marriage wedge issue. Unions were pretty much disempowered under Reagan (same folks involved). They are trying to get to young people with golden dreams of 'private accounts'. Etc.

The university dynamic draws also on a long-standing history of anti-intellectual populism in the US that the rightwing has drawn on since the beginning of US history.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 04:29 pm
well actually Blatham, I think if you look at Americas historic record "Populism" has occured on both sides of the political spectrum and has always died a rather quiet death.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 04:48 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
On Meet the Press, Pat Buchanan said a lot of the jist of the same things that Churchill got castigated for. Buchanan said that American interventionism was the CAUSE, and not the RESULT of 9/11.

How come this doesn't cause any great conservative caterwauling cacaphony? Is it only wrong when a steenking liberal spouts it?


Did Buchanan say the victims of 9/11 deserved what they got?

Huh?

Didn't think so.


Can you show me a quote where Churchill says the 9/11 victims deserved what they got?
Huh?
Didn't think so.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 05:02 pm
snood has a very minor point, IMO.

I watched Sharansky and Buchanan Sunday--and was in complete disagreement with Buchanan, as usual.

But, the overriding reason people are furious with the ass from Colorado--is he slurred the people who were murdered. Buchanan didn't.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 05:08 pm
segue, I was fascinated by the Bushanan/Sharansky chat. thought it well worth bringing up on a2k. Of course I didn't agree with either of them.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 05:22 pm
snood wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
On Meet the Press, Pat Buchanan said a lot of the jist of the same things that Churchill got castigated for. Buchanan said that American interventionism was the CAUSE, and not the RESULT of 9/11.

How come this doesn't cause any great conservative caterwauling cacaphony? Is it only wrong when a steenking liberal spouts it?


Did Buchanan say the victims of 9/11 deserved what they got?

Huh?

Didn't think so.


Can you show me a quote where Churchill says the 9/11 victims deserved what they got?
Huh?
Didn't think so.


From Churchill's essay ......

Quote:

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
[/b]


Are you claiming he is saying anything other than "they deserved what they got"?? Or are you saying he didn't use those words? In which case you make a poor point, not rising to the level of being called "minor," IMO.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Feb, 2005 05:40 pm
Buchanan is interesting. I heard him interviewed on a local NPR show a few months ago. He mostly talked about Iraq, and I mostly agreed with what he said. The interviewer, toward the end, said, "I told my friends I was having you on my show, and they said they find themselves on your side lately."

Buchanan then said, "Do your Seattle friends know about my social views?" I had to laugh...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Feb, 2005 08:07 am
Ticoyama,
I have to admit, I'd read coverage of Churchill's words that didn't stress the things you quoted. Pretty disgusting crap - you're right, I stand corrected.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/03/2021 at 05:42:47