Genociding Ward Churchill for over a 20th of a century

CNews 31December06

Happy New Year to our faithful PB readers! We've been told by an anonymous source (but haven't been able to verify) that Benjamin Whitmer will have a jolly year, as well, sucking off the public teat as he teaches an upper division American Indian Studies class (AIST 3030 Section 001) this Spring.

CNews 27December06

CNews 22December06

Alert: See Update III below for new details

According to artist and documentarian Grant Crowell, Ward Churchill's pseudonymous defender, "John Moredock", is in reality Benjamin Whitmer, an adjunct professor with CU's Ethnic Studies Department. "Moredock" posted hundreds of potentially libelous essays concerning most of Churchill's primary detractors on his blog TryWorks.org and its predecessor tryworks.blogspot.com—both of which disappeared Thursday evening from the internet, roughly around the time Crowell confronted "Moredock" via email with the fact that his identity had been discovered. [cached copies of both blogs persist, however, and we'll be posting links to those copies shortly]. Crowell discovered the Whitmer connection when he researched IP addresses from email correspondence he'd had with "Moredock."

The identity of "Moredock's" sometimes-coauthor, "Charley Arthur", remains unknown; the only clue being "Arthur's" remarkably intimate knowledge of Ward Churchill's private and public life stretching back for decades.

Content of the tryworks blog was regularly vicious, obscene and defamatory (we once described the tryworks gang as "kilkenny cats with tourette's syndrome and a library card") and it seems likely that, if Whitmer is indeed "Moredock," he'll have some uncomfortable questions to answer at CU.

Update: John Martin over at Drunkablog has posted a digest of quotes drawn from the tryworks blog.

Update II: Speculation on "Moredock's" identity is nearly as old as the Churchill scandal itself. We exchanged theories and IP addresses with a number of bloggers and other interested parties as far back as November 2005. And if one includes former PB gadfly "Kern" in the mix (more below), as far back as June '05. Here's an excerpt from an email we sent to our fellow "sleuths" this past January:

Just between you guys and me, I was starting to think tryworks was getting quite a bit of traffic; they were accounting for more visits to PB than Yahoo was.

Then today I downloaded some historical logs, and took a look at all the traffic referred to me by tryworks. Of the 148 referrals from tryworks between Jan. 5 and Jan. 29, exactly 100 of those visits were from one of two IP addresses: xo.net's 67.104.59.98 (which I've already ID'd as "Kern's" address) and the other is a Qwest Highlands Ranch node IP, 71.208.241.97 (cudenver.edu and three other IPs account for half the remaining 48 referrals)

Of the total 162 visits during that three-week period from those two IPs (I include all visits in this count, not just those referred from tryworks), never (as in not one single time) do the IPs visit PB at the same time. The minimum span of time between one IP's last page-load from PB and the other IP's first page-load from PB is 41 minutes, with most time-spans being in the 3-4 hour range.

Between the two IPs, they spent an astonishing [50+ hours (30,442 seconds)]* on PB between Jan. 6 and Jan. 29 (xo.,net IP: 13,444 minutes and Qwest IP: 16,998 minutes). And I thought I was obsessive (okay, so maybe I am; who else would waste a Sunday on this?).

Also, the Qwest IP is the only one to log-on in the early morning and late evening (4:48 - 6:07am; 5:18 - 9:03pm), while the xo.net IP logs-on only during regular working hours (6:56am - 4:42pm -- additionally, xo.net has never visited PB on a Saturday or Sunday)

* original email showed a misinterpretation of seconds as minutes, corrected quickly in a follow-up email

"Kern" was another subject of speculation. His acerbic comments appeared on PB in June '05, and almost immediately, we received emails from readers noting the similarity in writing styles between "Kern" and Churchill. We never uncovered "Kern's" identity, but we did learn that someone using the same IP address had visited PB using a link in tryworks sitemeter reports, meaning "Kern" was someone with administrative privileges at tryworks. Here's an excerpt from a November '05 email we sent theorizing on identities:

I find two recent occurrences to be interesting:

1) Yesterday I noticed a visitor to the website who had come there from a google search of "thorby jim paine", which--when I ran the same search--revealed information about my ranch. Today I see tryworks has posted a pic and link to my ranch's website. Oh, and btw, the IP address of the visitor who had googled "thorby jim paine" was, ahem: 67.104.59.98. BTW: I've emailed xo.net to find out whether that IP is a dynamically-assigned address or one statically assigned to a specific site. Considering privacy concerns, I don't know if xo.net will respond with any useful info, but I'll keep you posted.

2) Several days ago, Ward Churchill (in our ongoing correspondence) tried to pin me down on the name of my ship and exactly when I served in the Navy. Today, Moredock, et al, seem quite concerned about my military service. A side note is that Moredock et al don't quote me completely in the drunkablog interview, where I note:

"I should point out that I don't denigrate Churchill's actual Vietnam service (whatever that turns out to be); I question his own conflicting accounts of that experience. He has claimed variously to be a 'Public Information Specialist,' and a LRRP (long-range reconnaissance patrol) point-man; his military records say only that he was trained as a truck driver and a projectionist, and don't show the award of the CIB (Combat Infantry Badge), which Vietnam veterans tell me he would have received had he actually participated in any 'action.'"

Anyway, I'm pretty convinced that Moredock was PB's troll "Kern," who also used that xo.net IP. And I suppose it could just be coincidence that both Churchill and Moredock developed a simultaneous interest in my military service.

Update III: Grant Crowell sends us an email he received today from "John Moredock", the header of which is quite revealing (we've highlighted the points of interest):

Status: U
Return-Path: <benjamin.whitmer@gmail.com>
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171])
by mx-canard.atl.sa.earthlink.net (EarthLink SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1gXKAz7lt3Nl36s0
for <grantcrowell@earthlink.net>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:37:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id y2so3587813uge
for <grantcrowell@earthlink.net>; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:37:31 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:
content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
b=WH5MczklfHjJe8H1xy/FYPpvgsW15k4xFr5qygcjbXS9+W/b84xmUA9k7v4VYL6mD/IPjkVxDhP5QziBkL
U8Y5nsJFqjRqOlpzQm6ullHja3mbg3PwyZn
NWy7Bp0lGrm6MRI+1lWVrXwFDMzSGmOSXhhExvgtJFBbAbhqSZueVc=
Received: by 10.78.203.13 with SMTP id a13mr1106972hug.1166794651035;
Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:37:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.78.144.12 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:37:30 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <d9b36ab10612220537l10b3a27em2f682bab230f3332@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:37:30 -0700
From: "John Moredock" <john.moredock@gmail.com>
Sender: benjamin.whitmer@gmail.com
To: "Grant Crowell" <grantcrowell@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Taking your site down?
In-Reply-To: <C1B0D382.3929A%grantcrowell@earthlink.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_55511_20931432.1166794650717"
References: <d9b36ab10612211950i3f27dad9t109b8d29df76a940@mail.gmail.com>
<C1B0D382.3929A%grantcrowell@earthlink.net>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 68f840d7ec4a7780
X-ELNK-Info: spv=0;
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=0b; sbw=000;

------=_Part_55511_20931432.1166794650717
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Good Lord, get some sleep, sir. Look, I'm rather ambivalent about this. I
like being anonymous, but if (and I think it's a pretty if) you manage to
get the local media in this, it'll give me a hell of a platform to expound
on all those dirty tricks played in the Churchill coverage - from William
Bradford, to NAIM and Anna Mae, to Jim Paine as the Rocky's genealogist, to
your paying for interviews - which is all I was after in the first place.
I'll make sure my side of the story gets out. As to whatever you have to
incriminate me with, it ain't much more offensive than the average Wonkette
posting, so I ain't too worried.

So, do what you're gonna do. I'm not gonna call you, I'm not gonna bargain
with you, I could care less.

Cheers.

CNews 21December06

CNews 19December06

CNews 18December06

There were about 175-200 people there. The auditorium holds 280 and there were at least 100 vacant seats (counted after everyone seated). The flyer offered free food which is always a draw and the food was very good, catered from a co-op, probably 75% of the people ate the food. There were only about 10 or less people over 50, old enough to remember the Weathermen and SDS on campus and that included the two speakers. Age distribution was about 18 to 80. Crowd was at least 90-95% white. Gender distribution was at least 2/3 male. This was sponsored by neweracolordo.org, they state they are for election reform, energy policies and equal rights. I understood them to be for election day registration for voters among other things. They are looking for interns from CU. I would expect that is where professors would authorize an internship with them and give credit for it. Didn't ask.

The documentary on the Weathermen was shown and it gave an accurate representation of their actions as well as interviews of them in 2003, some are still proud, others ashamed or feel guilty about their actions. Film, according to Dohrn, had interviews in 1998, partially edited prior to 9-11 and final edited after 9-11. She felt the film didn't show the activities of Vietnam Vets in stopping the war but not that she was not shown accurately. Ayers voiced disagreement with the film. They still don't see the bombings by the Weathermen as violence. They both believe that capitalism is in its death throes. They want Bush impeached. They still believe that the Weathermen and the revolutionary times they existed in are a precurser to the real revolution that is to come in this country in twenty to thirty years. They encourage "points of convergence" a big theme with them, that is all the different fractions putting forward their agendas must find commonalities (convergences) of their needs and band together. Dohrn especially was adamant that she regretted the rhetoric that it was over the top. Neither Ayers or Dohrn were ever charged. Bill Ayers has a web site he says his wife, Dohrn, never had gone to check out: Bill Ayers Blogspot It puts him in perspective, also Amazon reviews of his book are not favorable. His book Fugitive Days: A Memoir came out just prior to 9-11 and this was not the time for a 20 city book tour of a radical bomber... it did not do well and is now selling for as low as 2-3 dollars a copy used.

During the Q&A someone asked the "ward churchill question" In that in 1987 Ward Churchill is quoted as being with your group and teaching you bombmaking. Can you confirm that.

They hadn't expected the question Ayers said, "I have a bad memory." and added later "Anyone who is trying to confirm this is talking to the wrong person, my memory is faulty and I did inhale and take those drugs." His bad memory is confirmed in his book. At this question, Dohrn shook her head negative indicating she couldn't confirm Churchill's presence. In a follow up question to her she was asked point blank, "when were you first aware of Ward Churchill's exisence." She said, "his books." But did say she has read that he was in Illinois and may have come up to Chicago. Ayers again faulted his memory. So I guess you could say that these two have no recollection of Ward ever being part of their group, and in an intimate enough circle to do bomb making. In the film the remaining weathermen, at least one of them, states "We taught ourselves bombmaking." Due to the secrecy of the Weathermen, and their divisions into independent cells, anyone teaching the "masters" how to make bombs to take back to the cells, would have been known to all. Everyone knows who teaches them a thing like that.
I would say that Ayers really couldn't confirm or deny, he isn't kidding about the memory problems. . . (or that a straight answer eludes him. Dohrn was very strong in saying that she didn't know who Churchill was until she was aware of his books. She was a BIG player in the SDS (secretary) and a big player in the Weathermen.

CNews 13December06

Looks like the folks at CU are pining away now that Ward Churchill's not a daily fixture on campus, so they're hosting a Weather Underground event tomorrow, replete with appearances by Bernardine Dorhn and Bill Ayers. Remember, kids: this is open to the public, and there'll be free food. Maybe our favorite professor will also show up and show newbies "where the bullets go." (ht to MP)

CNews 12December06

If you read much Ed Biz theorizing, you find yourself wondering how a single field of human enquiry can contain so much error and folly. One answer is that educationalists wilfully—ideologically, in fact—ignore the understanding of human nature that the modern human sciences are gradually attaining, and cling doggedly to long-exploded theories about how human beings develop from infancy to adulthood. From false premises they proceed to false conclusions.

The long and short of this new understanding is that human beings are much less malleable than everyone supposed half a century ago, and much less malleable than “blank slate” leftists—a category that includes practically all education theorists—have ever, for reasons not difficult to fathom, been willing to contemplate.

CNews 6December06

THE WARD CHURCHILL CASE AT U. of COLORADO
BACKGROUND BRIEF PREPARED FOR THE
AAUP COLORADO STATE CONFERENCE
(February 10, 2006)

The following brief is intended to help contextualize the circumstances relevant to professor Ward Churchill’s appointment as a tenure-track faculty in the Department of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado. It draws on my own recollections and personal knowledge of the CU Ethnic Studies program as well as published sources that are readily available on the internet. It is not meant to be a complete review of Churchill’s career or the case made against him by critics or the university.

---

1. Much has been made in the press of how professor Ward Churchill came to be appointed as Associate Professor with tenure in the CU Ethnic Studies program. Yet little has been said of the circumstances surrounding that appointment.

Professor Churchill first came to CU in 1978 when he was hired a lecturer in American Indian studies, film studies, and sociology. He had and still has just a Masters degree. In 1980 he was hired as Acting Director of the American Indian Educational Opportunities Program at CU and subsequently took the position of Director. Through the early-mid eighties he continued to lecture in the previous listed disciplinary areas and serve as Director of the AIEOP. In 1984 he became Director of the EOP’s Planning, Research, and Development component. In 1988, while continuing his part-time services a lecturer, he was appointed to the post of Director of the University Learning Center. 

In 1990, professor Churchill was instrumental in founding the Center for Studies of Ethnicity and Race in America (CSERA). He was hired on then as tenured Associate Professor of Communications with a half-time appointment at CSERA. It is more than worth noting that CSERA was founded in partial response to vocal criticism of CU and CU administrators by various ethnic minorities and their leadership in the Denver area, who tagged CU as inhospitable to minorities. The issue attracted the attention of the Colorado General Assembly. Then CU President Gordon Gee (1985-1990) had come under fire, leaving in 1990 to assume the presidency at Ohio State University. Before leaving he had authorized the establishment of CSERA and his successor clearly had a political mandate to make it a success.

CSERA’s creation in 1990 required the rapid hiring of new faculty. The clear intention from the beginning was to make CSERA a prominent and distinguished university program. The problem here was the dearth of qualified ethnic studies faculty nationwide and across the slate of relevant ethnicities at a time when ethnic studies programs were either newly developed or rapidly growing across the country. Competition among universities for known scholars was fierce. Between 1990 and 1992 CU, for instance, hired on Manning Marable, an academic superstar, and Vine Deloria, another superstar at salaries in excess of $100k. It scored several other academic coups. Because CSERA was structured as an “interdisciplinary” program faculty required joint appointments with line departments. This was difficult to achieve. Thus the Provost took an active hand in negotiating contacts and pushing departments to accept faculty. The political urgency of getting this program up and running rapidly was it seems thought to justify accelerating and granting tenure in order to anchor the program at the university and demonstrate to outside constituencies the seriousness and priority the university accorded CSERA. In sum, the circumstances surrounding Churchill’s hire were unique and of the sort that may justify central administrative intervention in the normal processes of tenure review at the level of line departments. 

2. Much criticism has also been directed at CSERA and the Ethnic Studies program. Another element of context that is poorly represented in the press is the unique standing of ethnic studies programs in general. 

Ethnic studies as a disciplinary field is among the youngest of the professional disciplines in higher education. While the teaching of ethnicity concerns in one aspect or another may date back more than a century, the development of formal programs of study is comparatively recent, arising from the civil rights movement and demand for such programs in the 1960s and 1970’s and since. Western states universities may well rank among the last holdouts in offering such curriculum in the form of certificate programs and majors. At Colorado State, for example, the first interdisciplinary ethnic studies minor, Hispanic Studies, was established in 1986. CSU’s Center for Applied Studies in American Ethnicity was created in 1993. 

The problem ethnic studies programs thus confront is that theirs is an inherently interdisciplinary discipline. Both the ethnic foci and the disciplinary basis of the faculty constituting these programs usually vary substantial from professor to professor. What is more, owing to interdisciplinarity, one frequently encounters a blurring of lines between the humanities, where interpretative scholarship often prevails, and social sciences, where rigorous procedures for validating factual claims prevail. Creating a sense of disciplinary integrity and scholarly accountability is thus especially challenging. Many universities have formally recognized this difficulty by requiring participating faculty to have a tenure home and pass scholarly review in a recognized discipline/department. 

This young discipline problem is further complicated by the frequent politicization of these programs and the expectation that faculty should be involved to a greater degree than other faculty in outreach and service functions to relevant ethnic communities. Such expectations, whether explicit or implicit, may divert ethnic studies faculty from greater investment in scholarship and other obligations.

It is important to understand that these conditions are real and impose special burdens on faculty and administrators called upon to evaluate the role and performance of faculty in ethnic studies programs. These factors are certainly in play in the Churchill case and should be taken into account in any review of the administrative decision-making associated with this case.


Dr. Stephen P. Mumme
Professor