From our Thank You Sir May I Have Another? department: Drunkablog discovers that CU not only hires them and tenures them, but it also brings scam-artists in from outside for speaking engagements.
"We should be responsible to protect each other from the crimes against humanity."
Yeah. That was certainly worth $160,000.
Speaking of scams (and who isn't?), this week's CU faculty organ Silver & Gold Record carries an LTTE opposing—what else?—the firing of that valued member of the academic community, Ward Churchill.
I am writing to express support for Ward Churchill's right to freedom of expression, and to oppose the possible firing of Professor Churchill on trumped-up charges. Professor Churchill is a valued member of the academic community, and the freedom to express political opinions, even when unpopular, is a vital part of academic culture. As a graduate student and a teacher myself, I strongly believe that we need professors who challenge the status quo as Churchill does. Firing Professor Churchill would be a serious blow against one of the most important roles in universities: to expose both students and faculty to the free expression and exchange of ideas.
Kristina Aikens, English, Tufts University
Hey, look! Kristina's at Tufts! Isn't that the stomping grounds of another DBAB member and "critical thimker"?
...and over on Colorado Daily's Wednesday LTTEs (which also publishes Kristina's plea) is an even more impassioned example of critical thimking (ht TDR):
I am among the many writing asking that you reconsider the potential dismissal of Professor Churchill. The impact of such a decision on academic freedom will be devastating, and could initiate a contemporary wave of academic persecution the likes of which have not been seen since the McCarthy era. Being among the first institutions swept up in that wave will likely have long-lasting repercussions on your own institutional strength, complicating long-term recruiting (of both faculty and students) and adding a degree of infamy more frequently associated with less prestigious private institutions like Bob Jones University.
The nature of the charges is exaggerated at best, and a potential dismissal will have two immediate implications: First, it will implicate [sic] your tenure process are [sic] amateurish and unprofessional as Professor Churchill had attained tenure in spite of such institutional oversight. Second, it will reduce the value of any degree attained by any student at your institution who managed to pass Professor Churchill's course. It would all be one thing if these had been identified as problems during the tenure process. That they have only become the objects of serious scrutiny now make [sic] you look like water-carriers for David Horowitz. If the public were ever better apprised of Horowitz and his connection to efforts to stifle academic freedom, regardless of the informal, indirect nature of his relationship to this effort, such an association would damage you far more than any association with Churchill. The Right already believes that academia is rife with liberalism, so the impact of the initial Churchill 9/11 controversy is really a drop in the bucket. Having your school associated with fringe movements whose political influence has been effectively halted by growing public antipathy against [sic] the War in Iraq will do you no favors.
The decision is yours, and I can only hope you are truly guided by your conscience, whatever your decision may be. I only hope that conscience is guided by a spirit of open-mindedness and an appreciation of the influence of that decision.
Assistant Professor of Communication Studies University of Houston-Downtown
We've discovered proof of Noj's assertion in our comments section that there's a point at which the Left and Right converge—it's that point where all decide "let's thoroughly embarrass ourselves in print." Here's Edwin A. Sumcad ("author [...] degrees in literature and journalism [...] practicing lawyer [...]"), trying (and damn if he doesn't succeed!) to out-Liddell-Leupp the Left with "We Forget Who And What We Are When We Attack America Or Crucify The President":
Prof. Ward Churchill of Colorado University and many of his leftist and Liberal colleagues in the academe who published books against America for profit (for Judas’ silver before the hanging by the tree), are proud of their academic works and anti-America campaign in identifying who we really are. Click the Web and presto … there they are ready to satiate the hunger of the macabre for blood! According to the good professor, we are Hitler’s “little Eichmanns”. Adolph Eichmann by the way was Hitler’s genocide architect of the infamous Holocaust.
...earlier in the, well, whatever it is, Sumcad has this to say about America's critics:
What bended mind would attack such a nation but that of a twisted rotten persona that just stepped out of the grave so horrible-looking that the ugliest of all Hunchback of Notre Dame characters in Victor Hugo’s literature are more than a hundred times prettier in comparison?
What bended mind indeed. (Sanity-Maintenance Tip of the Day: Don't even try to guess how many Hunchback of Notre Dame characters there were in Victor Hugo's literature. Just don't.) By the way, if the above sample has whetted your appetite for more, you're in luck; Sumcad is one prolific typist. Some of his other forays into intellectual discourse include "'Special' Casualties Of War: Some Veterans Who Now Speak Dirty Are Much Harder To Defeat," "Attackers Of The President And The United States That We Cannot Nuke," and "Let's Not Make Iraq a Foolish Repeat of Vietnam Where Beatniks Won the War for the Enemy."
Update: In Sumcad's defense, his first language appears to be Tagalog. What's the Liddell-Leupps' excuse?
Mildy OT: As if the internet weren't already filled-to-bursting with us pocket pundits and one-minute demystifiers all scrambling to be the next Little Green Footballs, Drunkablog is encouraging CU law professor Paul Campos to start his own blog.
Eva Liddell (a star pupil of Gary Leupp, no doubt) knows "Why They Want to Fire Ward Churchill". Spoiler alert: It's because the US is worse than Nazi Germany.
Sherman Dorn takes a look at politics vs. procedures in "Ward Churchill and the politicization of research misconduct"
The [traffic stop] analogy [used in the Investigative Subcommittee's report] failed to convince skeptics because it couldn't, even if it had been correct in the interpretation of the law. A university research-misconduct investigation is not a court proceeding, and even the most careful, scrupulously-clean procedure is still vulnerable to political interference. That is one of Ellen Schrecker's points in No Ivory Tower: The fact that universities often paid meticulous attention to procedural niceties when investigating allegations in the McCarthy era did not absolve them from having responded to outside pressure and having dismissed faculty for political reasons. Given our history, who could expect faculty to pass over the political context of the Churchill investigation?
At virtually every step, the faculty involved in Colorado have taken pains to acknowledge that context and say they did their best to address the substantive charges fairly. After racking my brains to find some way that the University of Colorado could have addressed the substantive charges without the political shadow over an investigation. I've failed; there is no way around the political context, no way to purify the process.
Having said that, I find the investigating committee's report persuasive in its argument that Churchill engaged in a long-term, unrepetant [sic] pattern of unprofessional research misconduct. Are the delay between the political pressures and the investigation, the faculty-centered fact-finding, and the processes enough to make the recommendation for firing Churchill reasonable? Unless someone can suggest another way, my answer is yes, or at least, this is the best that can be done.
That entirely ad-hoc answer doesn't mean that I am happy with the way that politics was deeply involved with setting the investigation in motion. It does mean that the university had the obligation to respond to the substantive charges, and unless Churchill's remaining defenders can suggest an alternative procedure that would have been better (and I haven't yet seen such a suggestion), the faculty-driven fact-finding process used was reasonable.
We can all go home now—a completely disinterested party with impeccable credentials has joined the movement to Save Ward Churchill From The Consequences Of His Own Actions!™ Big thanks to Petty-Bourgeois Right Opportunist Menshevik for forwarding this to us:
From: Michael Meeropol <firstname.lastname@example.org>Michael Meeropol is the older son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.
Date: Jun 25, 2007 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [mds-discuss] The Plagiarism Charges Against Ward Churchill
To: email@example.com, PoliticNow@aol.com
I was one of those on the left who have stayed away from public support
for Ward Churchill ... I have been convinced by Tom Mayer's arguments
that I was wrong.
I will be signing the petition to support him.
I am only sorry that it has taken me this long to make the effort to
really find out the truth.
We should be much more vigilant when the right wing attacks someone ...
Yes, sometime the "someone" is not the greatest exemplar of "our side"
-- but in the end, when the enemy attacks we should at least consider
the fact that (usually) "the enemy of my enemy is my friend ..."
Solidarity, Mike Meeropol
This is the unofficial Movement for a Democratic Society
(firstname.lastname@example.org) Discussion List.
mds-discuss is a discussion list for members of the Movement for a
Democratic Society (MDS). MDS serves the community of post graduate
activists, workers and all of those who struggle in democratic
solidarity. Announcement topics include (but are not limited to):
Radicals In The Professions (RIP), the Radical Education Project
(REP), the MDS Foundation, SDS/MDS Legal Defense and community and
HERE IS A SUMMARY OF HOW TO USE THIS LIST
* To post to this list send a message to: email@example.com
* To read list archives in a web browser:
* To change your subscription to digest mode (one message per day)
or to "no mail" (you can still access the website):
* To UNSUBSCRIBE: send a blank message to:
or visit http://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/mds-discuss
* To view list info (this message):
* To change your password http://lists.riseup.net/www/pref/
* To have a password reminder e-mail to you: http://lists.riseup.net/
*** Movement for a Democratic Society List Guidelines ***
1) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.
2) No trolls or right wingers (sorry if this seems redundant).
3) No cross posting.
4) Limit the number of posts per day - there is no set limit but courtesy
towards other list members is requested.
5) Limit the size of the post - it is appreciated by all.
Your moderators are: Devra Morice and Mark Derderian.
Tufts University history professor Gary Leupp wins this
Professors, once masters of their institutions, became more like employees in a firm. Some people think that's how it should be, or that it should be more and more like that. A favorite target for them, as you know, is the institution of tenure which [sic] operates to strengthen the faculty role. Some think professors ought to be judged on the product they produce, and how much of it they produce—for their employers (who, again, weren't even there initially). They should be graded on how many tuition-paying students they attract to the institution, how big their enrollments are, how well they contribute to corporate America by influencing young minds to better contribute to that America and its global ambitions.
Some would like to apply an ideological litmus test to us academic employees: they might for example suppose that all professors, just to assume their positions in society, ought to agree and actively propagate that the U.S. is the best country in the world, its capitalist system generally admirable (maybe even "the end of history"), its history (while containing some unfortunate aspects) generally inspirational, its wars if sometimes mistaken always undertaken with honorable motives. There are some commentators hostile to us for being disproportionately irreligious, disinclined to believe with the majority of Americans in the literal truth of Bible stories, much more likely to understand science within the matrix of the theory of evolution, far less likely than the population at large to believe the government when it offers its explanation for its wars. But maybe we do that precisely because of our educational backgrounds.
We're not sure how religion got into this debate, but this is Leupp's "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" moment, so let's let him roll. Later, he wanders back to the matter at hand:
Churchill's words of dissent, as you know, were constitutionally protected freedom of speech [sic]. So he could not be dismissed merely for the thought-crime of writing "The Justice of Roosting Chickens." But some people thought that despite his tenured status based on his prolific writings, student evaluations and record of service he had to be sacked on some basis, for some reason. As a practical matter they needed to get something on this professor. So they arranged to re-examine his entire career seeking some cause to sack him on grounds other than the nakedly political.
What do they come up with? A handful of accusations of plagiarism far less serious than those brought against presidential historian Doris Kerns Goodwin—those not raised by the presumed victims of such plagiarism but [by] a zealous ideologically driven team led by a former assistant attorney general of Texas. Six controversial counts of fabricating or falsifying information pertaining to the history of Native Americans.
I'd suggest that is [sic] boards of regents in this country were to investigate and punish the falsification of Native American history by scholars, or if society in general were to investigate such falsification in the media, popular culture and political discourse, we'd all be in for a very time-consuming process resulting in a whole lot of people out of jobs.
Sigh. An embarrassment of riches. Just go read the whole thing.
Update: Just because Leupp's essay is unrivaled in its truly heroic--nay, Ozymandian--stupidity doesn't mean others won't attempt to equal it. One of the commenters to Leupp's post gives it the college try. A sample:
If the vote of the student body in the Univ. of Colo. is ignored by the Board of Trustees, it should be a call for uprising, in a form which cannot be ignored.
The vote being referred to is the one that nominated Ward Churchill for a teaching award, which both the commenter and Leupp seem to think (or want us to think) was an overwhelming public affirmation of Churchill's sterling qualities as an educator and all-around righteous human being. The truth is somewhat less impressive; as we pointed out over two years ago, this monolithic acclamation came from an online poll in which 54 members of CU's student body of nearly 30,000 voted for Churchill. We'll say one thing, however: the online poll showed more numerical support for The Perfesser than Churchillpalooza did.
Update II: Our cup runneth over. Here's Professor Leupp last year on CounterPunch with "Better Off Under Saddam"
From our Believe It Or Stuff It department: Has a lasting cure for anti-Americanism abroad finally been found? It has, according to this letter posted by those zany anonymities over on wardchurchill.net:
I am living in Portugal, what representatives of your federal administration use to call “Old Europe”.
As perhaps might have come to your attention, Pew, Zogby, and a host of other worldwide opinion polls have shown that the standing of the United States of America in the rest of the world has suffered a great deal during the last years. However, I have been able to use Ward Churchill’s Essay “Some People Push Back” with considerable success in countering antiamericanism here. Most people respond like, “well, not everything is lost over there if they still have people like Ward.”
It is true that the Nov. 2004 reelection of George W. Bush was not exactly helpful in this matter, however I think you should award Mr. Churchill a medal for improving America’s image worldwide, not fire him.
It occurs to us that of the dozens of websites (think we're kidding?) echoing Nancy Elaine Natsu TruthForce Taylor Saito's twisted spin on the latest developments in the Ward Churchill burlesque (including that of Peter N. "Cheerio! Pip, Pip! Wot?" Kirstein), not a single one indicates she's ever met the man, much less that she's married to him.
We seem to have missed ever linking to Geunter Lewy's 2004 essay "Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?" Lewy, by the way, once said of Churchill: "He just makes things up."
DBAB's Deus ex Machina broken down
Churchill's wife, his supporters, minions, hangers-on, toadies, dogs—all have pinned their hopes on the selective interpretation of ambiguities in the Ward Churchill Investigative Subcommittee's report, and even more so, on some so-called "new evidence" presented to the Privilege & Tenure Panel (which reviewed the investigation report), and fervently believed by the Ward Churchill Dune Buggy Attack Battalion to exonerate The Perfesser. It would seem the DBAB wants to severely diminish the impact of the P&T panel's report, yet relies on that same impact to mitigate or viscerate the charges against Churchill. Inadvertently assisting the DBAB in this subterfuge is the lack of public access to anything but small quotes lifted from the report that have appeared in local and national newspapers. Only PB has published extended excerpts from the report, and then, only those having to do with the panel's wrassling with the arguments favoring or against dismissal.
As a public service, we've excerpted below much more—the charges, the findings (and where we felt it pertinent for context, the comments), as well as the conclusions the P&T panel drew, on all non-procedural allegations under consideration. We've excluded the P&T panel report's replication of the findings of the SCRM Investigative Subcommittee because a) those findings are readily available here, and b) we hate typing. And while this does not comprise the entirety of the panel's report, those portions we excerpt below are unedited and presented in their entirety (no ellipses here).
Allegation A: Misrepresentation of the General Allotment Act of 1887
Panel Findings: "We find clear and convincing evidence of evidentiary fabrication with respect to ghostwriting."
Panel Conclusions: "In the matters of falsification and fabrication in this allegation, as noted above, we do not conclude that this is conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity.
"In the matter of evidentiary fabrication in this allegation, involving ghostwriting and self-citation, we conclude that this is conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
Allegation B: Misrepresentation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990
Panel Findings: "We find clear and convincing evidence of evidentiary fabrication in this allegation."
Panel Conclusions: "In the matters of falsification and fabrication in this allegation, as noted above, we do not conclude that this is conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity.
"In the matter of evidentiary fabrication in this allegation, involving ghostwriting and self-citation, we conclude that this is conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
Allegation C: Captain John Smith and Smallpox in New England, 1614-1518
Comments by the Panel: "More information from Professor Churchill was admitted to the panel than was available to the SCRM Committee. He also pointed out that he was not asserting as a fact that Smith did all of these things, only that there was circumstantial evidence that he did.
"The panel accepts the finding of the Investigative Committee that there is a preponderance of evidence of fabrication and falsification. We note, though, that Churchill claims "circumstantial" evidence that John Smith started the small pox epidemic of 1616-1618. Given the somewhat ambiguous nature of what constitutes circumstantial evidence, as well as the ambiguities in historical record, and considering the new information admitted at the hearing, we do not find that the evidence for their conclusions rises to the "clear and convincing" level that we require."
Panel Findings: "We do not find clear and convincing evidence of fabrication or falsification in this allegation."
Panel Conclusions: "Since we did not find clear and convincing evidence of the behavior that is the subject of this allegation (fabrication or falsification), we do not find clear and convincing evidence that this conduct falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
Allegation D: The Smallpox Pandemic at Fort Clark
Subquestion 1. Is there any reasonable basis for Professor Churchill's claim that smallpox was spread intentionally by the U.S. Army to Mandan Indians at Fort Clark in 1837, using infected blankets?
Comments by Panel: "In light of evidence provided by Professor Churchill during the Investigative Hearing, the panel agrees that there is oral and written history that would support the assertion that at various times and places, smallpox infected material was distributed to Indians. The other conclusions of the SCRM committee on this subquestion relate to poor scholarship but do not find fabrication, falsification or plagiarism."
Panel Findings: "We do not find clear and convincing evidence of falsification or fabrication with respect to this subquestion."
Panel Conclusions: "Since we did not find clear and convincing evidence for the conduct alleged, we do not conclude that there was conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity with regard to this subquestion."
Subquestion 2: Is there any reasonable basis for Professor Churchill's claim that those blankets had been taken from a smallpox infirmary in St. Louis?
Panel Findings: "We find clear and convincing evidence that Professor Churchill fabricated this material."
Panel Conclusions: "As described in the comments above, this seems to us to go beyond reasonable allowances for ambiguity, and attributes bad conduct to the Army with no evidence in support it. We conclude that this is conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
Subquestion 3: Is there any reasonable basis for Professor Churchill's claim that Army doctors or the post surgeon advised the Indians to scatter after smallpox broke out among them?
Comments by Panel: "The panel is persuaded by the evidence that Professor Churchill fabricated part of his material. In mitigation, Professor Churchill does bring out new material that tends to lessen some of the charges. However, these should have been part of the original writings. It does little good to the reading public to have these qualifying statements presented months or years after the fact."
Panel Findings: "We find clear and convincing evidence of fabrication in this subquestion."
Panel Conclusions: "As with the previous subquestion, the use of such detail to support a position without appropriate evidence strikes us as serious, and we conclude that this is conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
Subquestion 4: Is there any reasonable basis for Professor Churchill's claim that the Army had stored rather than administered a smallpox vaccine distributed for the purpose of inoculating Indians?
Comments by the Panel: "The the Investigative Committee, the evidence seems clear that Professor Churchill did fabricate the statements.
"We are concerned, though, that SCRM finds that the statement of Robertson "that in the summer of 1832 an Army major and some troops escorted a physician and some cowpox vaccine as far as Fort Union" was incorrect, since the order was not to take vaccine above the Lower Missouri. This was to punish the Mandan who lived further up the Missouri River. It seems to us this goes beyond the Investigative Committee's charge. Professor Churchill is bound by the "control and authority of the rational methods by which truth is established" and while this or any other choice of reference may doubtless by criticized, we are not convinced by the evidence that reliance on Robertson here is so inappropriate as to be irrational. We think this strays into evaluating Professor Churchill's references, rather than seeing if he had a rational basis for his conclusions. We think it would be more appropriate to accept Professor Churchill's reliance on Robertson here."
Panel Findings: "We do not disagree with the SCRM finding of fabrication at the preponderance of the evidence level, but given our concerns mentioned above, we do not find clear and convincing evidence of the fabrication."
Panel Conclusions: "We do not find clear and convincing evidence of the conduct alleged, and therefore do not find conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity in this subquestion."
Subquestion 5: Did Professor Churchill misuse the sources he cites when describing how many Indians died in the pandemic that followed the Fort Clark suituation?
Panel Findings: "We find clear and convincing evidence of falsification in regard to this subquestion."
Panel Conclusions: "As indicated in our comments above, we feel this violation is serious and conclude that this is conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
Allegation E: Dam the Dams [plagiarism]
Panel Findings: "The panel finds clear and convincing evidence of plagiarism with respect to this allegation."
Panel Conclusions: "We conclude that this conduct falls below minimum standards of professional integrity. While it is perhaps true that the damage to the original authors in this case is minimal, it seems clear that it satisfies the definition of plagiarism, and the conduct was repeated."
Allegation F: Plagiarism of Rebecca Robbins
Panel Findings: "We find clear and convincing evidence of a failure to comply with established standards on the use of author names on publications."
Panel Conclusions: "The panel acknowledges the difficulty in finding specific guidelines related to ghostwriting, and acknowledges that other communities might be more oriented to collective approaches and less concerned about taking individual credit for ideas. But then, why put anyone's name (your own or someone else's) on an article at all? In the light of what we take to be accepted standards by large components of the academic world, this conduct seems inherently deceptive. Accordingly, we conclude that such conduct falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."
Allegation G: Plagiarism of Professor Fay G. Cohen
Panel Findings: "We find that the article is clearly plagiarized. The question remains whether Professor Churchill was responsible for the plagiarism. We acknowledge his claim that he played only a minor role in publishing the article the second time, but there is evidence that he knew about Professor Cohen's withdrawal of the article, he claimed authorship on his annual report, and the "About the Authors" section of the book indicates his involvement with the article to a rather larger extent than he suggests. We agree with SCRM that he was at least an accomplice in this plagiarism, and we so find by clear and convincing evidence."
Panel Conclusions: "We conclude that this was conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity. The plagiarism is clear, and we are satisfied that Professor Churchill was involved in it."
Not OT: Inside Higher Education discusses a new study that suggests strongly that a state's investment in higher education actually impedes that state's economic growth.
The Daily Camera has a rather blasé story (free reg. required) on Nancy Elaine TruthForce Taylor Saito (aka Mrs. Ward Churchill), and—of more interest to PB readers—the probable timeline of the third act in this burlesque (ht TDR)
After being notified that the CU president is recommending to the regents that he be fired because of research misconduct, Churchill has formally requested a private hearing with the Board of Regents. At the hearing, the regents will listen to arguments from attorneys representing the tenured professor and the university.
"The next step is to schedule the hearing," said CU spokeswoman Michele McKinney.
McKinney said she expects that the hearing will take place in late July and will be finished in one day. The regents will then vote in public — but without a public hearing — whether Churchill should be dismissed.
The forces of Ward Churchill's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion marshal their mighty forces
Ward Churchill is an academic and scholar, a professor and thinker/theorist. And he hasn't done anything wrong. So why is he the target of a witch hunt? Because he's alive and he's not in entertainment. Like Susan Sontag and Bill Maher, Ward Churchill was attacked by the thought police post-9-11 for comments regarding 9-11. None of them deserved to be attacked. Susan Sontag passed away and Maher ended up on HBO. Ward Churchill was the one they could hurt the most because they both had higher profiles and weren't professors. He is and you can always scare the academic grove. So now he will most likely lose his job and he wouldn't if the non-stop, years of hysteria following 9-11 hadn't happened. To be clear here, those attacking him were attacking him before 9-11. His work makes some people (especially right wingers but apparently some left wingers as well to judge by the lack of defense he received from many outlets -- or the weak defense he got) uncomfortable because he's looking at the power structure in this country and how it has abused. He's a serious thinker and he didn't plagarize or do anything wrong. Read the article if he's new to you....So let that be a lesson to you, DBAB. Mess with us thought police and you'll end up passed away. Or worse, on HBO.
And Here (excerpt):
if you read natsu saito's 'The Regents and Ward Churchill' (counterpunch), you will find a list of e-mail addresses you can use to register your objection to the firing of professor churchill. he's being railroaded and i think kat captures that in her 'Ward Churchill' tonight so read that and i won't have to bore you with my angry rant about the way academics are supposed to be above this nonsense and silencing an important voice is never going to help any 1. he is an important voice.
Mildy OT: Stout-fellowish Professor Peter N. Kirstein's upper lip may be stiff as a British Calvary boot, but his lower lip is all a-quiver (still) over his suspension & reprimand four years ago for sending a nastygram to an Air Force Academy cadet calling the cadet a baby-killer and a disgrace.
Excerpt (emphasis ours):
Mr Horowitz references my e-mail exchange with Cadet Kurpiel of the Air Force Academy which led to a suspension and reprimand that I have challenged for four years. Speech may be controversial, even provocative and at times intemperate but A.A.U.P. guidelines are explicit that they rarely reflect on one’s capacity to perform her or his duties and a suspension can only be levied if there is a danger of imminent harm to a principal in the case....to paraphrase Hemingway, the professoriate really are different from you and me. (yes, we know professoriate is singular; if Kirstein can refer to "speech" as "they," we can damn sure make "professoriate" plural. Sue us.)
Incidentally, it's been 82 days since Ward Churchill doppelganger (and tryworks security guard) "Charley Arthur" promised to post an hour-long video "proving" Churchill's Indian ancestry on wardchurchill.net. Additionally, it's been 26 days since "Charley" asserted without proof that it was a matter of record that Churchill protested Mimi Wesson's chairmanship of the investigating subcommittee "forcefully and repeatedly."
The Gutting of TruthForce 1-2-3
On TruthForce's CounterPunch whine, Noj notes:
You can almost smell Nancy Elaine's (aka Natsu) dishonesty emanating through the computer screen:
Lie #1: Nancy states that CU is firing Churchill for "improper footnoting or author attribution." No, they are firing him for multiple counts of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification.
Lie #2: Nancy states that CU found against Churchill because he "failed to provide sufficient evidence that in the 1837 smallpox epidemic...(a) infected blankets were obtained from an infirmary." No, he is charged with fabricating the existence of smallpox blankets taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis. It's not a matter of "sufficient evidence." Churchill has yet to provide any evidence at all, for any part of this claim. In fact, he has since abandoned this claim. His new defense is that the fur company-owned steamboat was a floating infirmary. His original claim about the military infirmary in St. Louis has flown out the window, given that he has no evidence at all for this fabrication.
Lie #3: "failed to provide sufficient evidence that in the 1837 smallpox epidemic... (b) an Army doctor or post surgeon told the Mandans to scatter." Churchill specifically indicted Army doctors for deliberately violating quarantine with genocidal intent. But he has since admitted that there were no Army personnel at the scene. Oops!
Lie #4: "failed to provide sufficient evidence that in the 1837 smallpox epidemic... (c) 400,000 people, as opposed to possibly 300,000, ultimately died." Churchill was found guilty of lying about the numbers reported by the sources he cited, aka "falsification." None of his sources mention the 300,000 number. Where did Nancy get that number?
Lie #5: "cited to material he has consistently acknowledged as ghostwritten;" The committees found Churchill guilty of fabricating evidence, by pretending that a third party supported his argument, without disclosing that he was the real author.
Lie #6: "published an article in Z Magazine in which the editors, without telling him, deleted his attribution of co-authorship to "Dam the Dams." Churchill's excuse here is not too believable, but let's play along. Did Churchill request that the editors publish a correction in the next issue? Or did he just accept full credit for an essay he never wrote?
Lie #7: "copyedited a piece in a book edited by a third party which, unbeknownst to him, plagiarized Fay Cohen." This is the most blatant lie of all. Churchill solicited Cohen's essay. She denied him permission to use it. So then he plagiarized it. His claim that some unnamed third party did the plagiarism, "unbeknownst to him" is absurd on its face. He knew whose essay it was, and he knew that Cohen denied him the right to use it.
Lie #8: "Subsequently it comes out that all of the allegations actually investigated were either created or solicited by University administrators." And Nancy's evidence for this is? Zilch. Nada. Bupkis. Her strategy is the same as Churchill's: just tell a lie, and hope no one notices.
Lie #9: "The Committee includes no American Indians and no one specializing in American Indian or Indigenous Studies." The easily checkable truth is that the committee included Robert Clinton, a redoubtable expert in American Indian law. You might also note that Ward Churchill himself said that you don't have to be an Indian to do Indian Studies.
Lie #10: "Two members of the [P&T] panel support dismissal; three recommend a 1-year suspension." Nancy neglects to disclose that the panel also recommended that Churchill be demoted in rank.
So, ten lies in one short piece. Nice work, Nancy. She is proving to be every bit as dishonest as Churchill himself. And GSU has her teaching Professional Responsibility? Incredible!
The lovely and talented Peter N. Kirstein posts an interesting email exchange between himself and David Horowitz
Excerpt (from Kirstein's email response):
In the case of Ward Churchill, several independent inquiries have raised serious questions concerning the process in which his research was vetted and the conclusions that were reached. Many have questioned the absence of Native Americans from the panel and the degree of alleged misconduct in his small-pox transmittal allegations. I admit I have not independently scrutinised [sic] or examined the debate over his use of sources, or claims of authorship. Yet given the fact that the investigation would NOT have occurred had he not been attacked for his writings about the World Trade Center casualties on September 11, I think there is more than adequate information to sustain the charge that Professor Churchill is being threatened with a likely dismissal due to his political views and not his alleged scholarly transgressions.
...Funny how two agenda-driven (and easily dismissed) smokescreens become "several independent inquiries" from Kirstein's perspective. Also, that Kirstein thinks Investigating Subcommittee member Professor Jose Limón, who inarguably possesses more Native American blood than does Churchill, is not "Native American."
Update: Kirstein himself checks in to point out that his spelling of "scrutinised" does not require a [sic] because that construction is perfectly acceptable in merrye olde England(e). We're going to let the [sic] stand for either of two very good reasons: 1. We're in the US, we're both gringos, and both of us write for a US readership; and 2. Using British spelling (when you're a gringo and writing for a US readership) is a cloyingly prissy affectation that virtually begs for a wedgie. Just spitballing here, but we're guessing Kirstein rarely had lunch money long.
Drunkablog notes that CU faculty organ Silver & Gold Record is reporting that the P&T panel has not responded to CU President Hank Brown's recommendation that Churchill be fired, and that Churchill's requested private hearing with the Board of Regents hasn't been scheduled yet.
Speaking of the new & improved Nancy Elaine TruthForce Taylor Saito, she's spinning more deceit over at Counterpunch (ht Leah, Lawyer)
Excerpt (emphasis in the original):
CU's grounds for dismissal now consist solely of the charges that Prof. Churchill:
(1) failed to provide sufficient evidence that in the 1837 smallpox epidemic
(a) infected blankets were obtained from an infirmary;
(b) an Army doctor or post surgeon told the Mandans to scatter; and
(c) 400,000 people, as opposed to possibly 300,000, ultimately died;
(2) cited to material he has consistently acknowledged as ghostwritten;
(3) published an article in Z Magazine in which the editors, without telling him, deleted his attribution of co-authorship to "Dam the Dams;" and
(4) copyedited a piece in a book edited by a third party which, unbeknownst to him, plagiarized Fay Cohen.
The invalidity of each charge has been shown demonstrated by Prof. Churchill and numerous other scholars. But even if they were true, they illustrate the pretextual nature of the process. No prolific scholar could withstand such fine-tooth combing of his or her work.
The Bottom Line: Recognizing that they could not fire Prof. Churchill directly for his political speech, CU administrators created a pretext to do so by soliciting/inventing "research misconduct" allegations. A biased investigation generated a handful of technical charges which the University has falsely labeled "plagiarism" or "fabrication of evidence." To date, external political and financial pressures have trumped the First Amendment and the principle of academic freedom at the University of Colorado.
...we note with interest that TruthForce claims later in the piece that on June 7, 2007 (emphasis ours) "CU President Hank Brown refuses to recuse himself or delay action, and overrides the majority of both the Investigative Committee and the faculty appeal panel to recommend that the Regents fire Prof. Churchill." We note this with interest, because the investigative committee's report—with its 3-2 recommendation to revoke Churchill's tenure and terminate his employment (page 103 of the pdf; page 102 of the report)—is readily available from a variety of sources, including CU's website. We're guessing math was not one of TruthForce's better subjects, but we wouldn't want to rush to judgment here; perhaps in her native culture, three is less than two.
BTW: TruthForce's CounterPunch whine helpfully publishes this:
I hope you will take the time to e-mail the CU Regents and urge them not to fire Ward Churchill. They can be reached c/o Millie.Cortez@cu.edu , or individually at
...so we repost it here to allow everyone (and not just those privileged "critical thinkers" who get their news from CounterPunch) to share their thoughts on Ward Churchill with the CU Regents. Remember, kids: Keep it clean.
Update: In our comments section, Professor Dean Saitta begs to differ with us on the 3-2 recommendation:
As I read page 102 of the Investigative Committee report the "recommendations" for sanction are 4-1 for suspension (of 2 or 5 years) over dismissal. Three members say that dismissal would not be an improper sanction "after completion of all normal procedures." Normal procedures would seem to include hearing from the Privilege and Tenure Committee who also recommended (on the basis of additional evidence not available to the Investigative Committee), by a 3-2 majority for suspension (of one year) along with demotion). Those seem to me to be the relevant mathematical facts.
To which we've responded:
You're right, Professor Saitta. There's enough waffle on that page (and elsewhere in the report) to provision a Moonbat Fly-In Breakfast Reunion.
So you can believe what you want, and I'll just note these two statements on that page:
Two members of the Committee conclude and recommend that Professor Churchill should not be dismissed....and:Three members of the Committee believe that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is so serious that it satisfies the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal specified in section 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents, and hence that revocation of tenure and dismissal, after completion of all normal procedures, is not an improper sanction.
Update II: PB reader Waldo Pepper informs us that TruthForce taught Professional Responsibility this semester at Georgia State University. Also from Waldo, this link, which seems to indicate that for a parachuting LRRP, Churchill sure has an odd lack of familiarity with US Army insignia and medals.
Update III: As PB reader Noj points out, TruthForce (as well as the rest of us—our hair-shirt is, unfortunately, on back-order, Noj, so will a heartfelt mea culpa do?) failed to mention the recommendation of CU's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (the body to which the ad hoc Investigating Subcommittee reported) to fire Churchill (from page 16 of SCRM's report last June, emphasis ours):
In deliberating about appropriate sanctions, SCRM was not unanimous in its recommendations, nor did it feel any obligation to reach a consensus. The SCRM’s rules do not require a consensus; moreover, since the committee’s role is to provide recommendations to the ultimate decision makers, we believe that representing the range of perspectives of the committee members will be most useful to those decision makers. With that in mind, six of the voting members of the committee recommended dismissal, two recommended suspension without pay for a five-year term, and one recommended suspension without pay for a two-year term.
As James Lett observes in one of PB's rotating bromides, "If you are willing to be selective in the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth is flat."
Update IV: One of the most glaring oversights in statements of academic ethical standards is the absence of "citing one's own ghostwritten articles" as independent support for conclusions drawn under one's own name. We note, however, that statements of academic ethical standards also fail to provide for sanctions against academics who take illegal drugs with minors under their care, kite stolen checks, or (and we're pretty sure on this one) bury cub scouts in their backyards. So, to those academics with annoying dens of noisy webelos in the neighborhood, we think we've found your air-tight defense should the voices in your head prove irresistible.
also BTW: Over on the Drunkablog (read the comments), Snapple (yes, Snapple!) discovers that Ward Churchill's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion has developed a television commercial as part of its defense of The Perfesser.
This just in from PB reader TDR: The Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) is circulating the following statement via email:
Statement by the Society of American Law Teachers Urging the Colorado Board of Regents To Protect Academic Freedom by Refusing to Fire Professor Ward Churchill for his Exercise of Free Speech
The Society of American Law Teachers (SALT), the largest membership organization of law professors in the United States, issues this statement1 emphatically urging the Colorado Board of Regents to reject the recommendation of CU President Hank Brown to fire Ward Churchill. In so doing, the Regents would show the people of this country that the leaders of academia in Colorado are willing to uphold basic principles of freedom of speech, due process, and academic freedom and that they refuse to bow to political pressure aimed at silencing dissenting voices. As the Supreme Court has noted in the past, “The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society.” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1968).
Professor Churchill’s case presents an opportunity for the Colorado Board of Regents to publicly recognize that due process principles and the freedom of university professors as public intellectuals to criticize public policy are essential both to academia and to our democracy. The investigation of Professor Churchill and the recommendation to fire him call into question those basic principles. The “free and unhindered debate on matters of public importance” constitutes a “core value of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, Will County, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). SALT’s commitment to academic freedom and an open and democratic society compels us to issue this statement opposing Professor Churchill’s firing.
Professor Churchill’s entire academic career has been devoted to researching and documenting governmental misconduct, both with regard to its treatment of American Indians and other minority groups and as to its illegal activities through agencies such as the F.B.I. He is acknowledged to be a prolific scholar who offers a different perspective on American history and politics – one that presents a critical, and often unflattering, view of the conduct of the American government. Precisely because they are so controversial, his are the kind of views that should be given the greatest, not the least, protection. Yet, the record in Professor Churchill’s case indicates that exactly the opposite has occurred – Professor Churchill’s work has been singled out and scrutinized through a process that, itself, fails to comport with basic principles of institutional integrity and due process.
The initial investigation of Professor Churchill’s extensive scholarship began only after Professor Churchill made politically unpopular statements. After politicians publicly declared he should be fired for those remarks, the University of Colorado (CU) undertook an investigation into his scholarship – long after the scholarship had already been thoroughly reviewed through the University’s own promotion and tenure process. Many of the allegations solicited by the University in this process were based upon critiques of Professor Churchill’s work that had been in the public domain for many years before CU’s investigative process began and had never before drawn the University’s attention.
The report of the University’s investigative committee has itself become the basis for two separate research misconduct charges filed against its members, and CU’s own Privilege and Tenure (P&T) Appeals Panel flatly rejected many of its conclusions. The remaining charges upheld by the P&T Appeals Panel are contested by Professor Churchill. More importantly, a majority of the Appeals Panel recommended only a 1- year suspension and demotion. Yet, President Brown disregards the results of CU’s own process to advocate that Professor Churchill be fired.
While the CU investigative committee claims that it took great care to avoid the speech which precipitated the furor over Ward Churchill, there is no way to divorce the review of his scholarship from the public controversy which caused it. If Professor Churchill may be dismissed on the basis of the charges found valid by CU’s P&T Appeals panel, charges which he contests, scholars critical of the status quo who teach in the Colorado system, as well as throughout the country, should not rest easily. For if the same standards and a similarly flawed process were applied to all scholars, many of them might lose their jobs as well. The message that a dismissal in this case sends to all academics who engage in work that questions the status quo is that they continue that work at their peril. If they continue to publish politically unpopular ideas, then, like Professor Churchill, they may find their scholarship put under a microscope, their livelihood threatened, and due process and fundamental fairness considerations put aside by administrators who lack the courage and conviction to protect academic freedom when it matters most, when unpopular individuals and ideas are in the crosshairs.
SALT believes that a procedurally flawed and politically motivated process cannot produce a just result. For that reason, we urge the CU Board of Regents to reject the recommendation of President Brown to fire Professor Churchill and, in so doing, to publicly confirm its commitment to our most precious freedom – the ability to express dissenting views without fear of reprisal.
1. The vote on this statement was unanimous. One member of the SALT Board of Governors abstained from the vote (and did not participate in either the decision to write the statement or its drafting) due to a conflict of interest.
...Naturally, we'd like to think the one abstaining member was Natsu Taylor Saito, whose sense of justice and fair play has certainly matured (if she abstained) since she published laudatory reviews of hubby Ward Churchill's books (as well as—oh, what the hell—one of her own) under the pseudonym TruthForce.
SALT has, by the way, not been a disinterested observer of the Churchill burlesque.
- Last September SALT circulated its own "unfire Ward Churchill" petition (which netted a few angry responses from those on the email list).
- SALT hosted Ward Churchill during a workshop back in January 2006; subject: "Academic Freedom Under Assault," of course.
- creating and maintaining a community of progressive and caring law professors dedicated to making a difference through the power of law,
- promoting the use of many forms and innovative styles of teaching to make our classrooms more inclusive, and
- challenging faculty and students to develop legal institutions with greater equality, justice and excellence.
- putting the full weight and resources of our organization into the defense of a proven serial fraud and plagiarizer... just to prove we can do it. [okay, so we made this last one up]
Over at wardchurchill.net, Churchill coprophage Tom Mayer attempts to fisk what he imagines to be the three plagiarism charges against The Perfesser. (ht Leah)
Our favorite excerpt:
From the gravity of the rhetoric, one would think that Churchill was building academic Ponzi schemes by sustaining controversial propositions with recursive citations from his own ghost written texts.
Yes, one would, wouldn't one?
Our other favorite excerpt:
Even though these unacknowledged self citations are substantively harmless, one could ask why Churchill did not declare his own authorship when making references. A usable citation must reference the published form of a paper. Declaration of alternative authorship could confuse a reader who is seeking a source. More importantly, a declaration of alternative authorship could embarrass or even materially harm the persons under whose names the articles were published.Mayer is on Churchill's side, right?
We missed this somehow, but Ward Churchill published a response to CU President Hank Brown's recommendation (ht John Doe). The response shows the now-legendary Churchillian casual attitude toward facts.
Update: Ah, it's all coming back to us now. We actually pointed to a copy of Churchill's response over at wardchurchill.net back on the 28th of May (thanks for the memory-jog, jgm). Guess we picked the wrong day to stop huffing glue.
Fine observations on the Hank Brown-Ward Churchill showdown from ACTA President Anne D. Neal over at Inside Higher Education (ht Leah)
The arguments of Churchill and his misguided defenders do — regrettably — arise from a basic conviction that academics should be free from accountability. They involve manipulating the term “academic freedom” in ways that undermine a concept of foundational importance to the academic enterprise. They amount to an attempt to turn the concept inside out — morphing what was originally a cluster of interlocking privileges and responsibilities centered on the public good into a justification for the false idea that academics have no obligation to the public at all. Finally, they stem from the profoundly mistaken premise – which Brown rebuts in his letter to the Board of Regents – that input from the public, from constituencies such as alumni and trustees, violates academic freedom as well. Why else would Churchill and his defenders absurdly claim that Brown’s advisory role with the American Council of Trustees and Alumni — which ended a decade ago — invalidates his opinion?
From our Embarrassment Of Riches department: Courtesy of mexica-movement.org ("Europeans collectively have been illegally occupying our continent, like thieves, criminals, killers, parasites on our people and our continent, stealing the wealth of our lands, killing 95% of our people, intentionally using biological warfare (in the form of smallpox that killed 70 to 100 million of our people with this monstrous weapon of mass destruction), enslaving the remains of our people, and using their deformed White Supremacy morality to justify all of their crimes and injustices since 1492!"; by the way, you'll love the artwork), some of Churchill's lout-shouting at the University of California-Irvine back in May
- Part one: Manifest Destiny equals genocide, blah blah blah
- Part two: In which The Perfesser demonstrates his higher math skills
- Part three: In which we learn Europeans came here for the express purpose of butchering Indians
- Part four: In which we Learn that The Perfesser majored in football in high school, and that there's a whole body of literature supporting his claims of intentional smallpox infection
- Part five:In which we are regaled once again with the heartwarming story of Indian heads used for a game of kickball
We saved the best for last. Here's an absolutely fascinating video defense of Churchill's 9/11 essay (fascinating not for the content of the argument, but rather because the author of the video, "melsbasketcase" hears voices and appears to be a diagnosed schizophrenic—and has produced more than 400 equally fascinating youtube monologues with great titles such as "Is my bisexual cat Songlian doomed to hell?", "Which is funnier, crazy people or retards?", "Atheists have greasy faces", and "Nornna farts on Camera.")
Update: melsbasketcase is apparently a celebrity of sorts on youtube; someone's actually made a tribute video
Hardly OT: Duke University continues to prove its faculty lounge is really just a tiny car from which an endless stream of clowns emerges. (as PK Boucher points out, we're only about five months late noticing this. A pox on these kerosene-powered modems!)
Don't forget: Ward Churchill and his legal sock-puppet David Lane will be appearing tonight on Denver's NBC affiliate, on "Your Show" (6pm MDT).
Update: Viewers called Churchill a "fraud", a "hoax" and an embarrassment—and that was during the first few minutes of the interview (according to the linked article). Video of today's show is available
Update II: Ah, here's the Churchill segment. (kudos, btw, to KUSA, which made the segments available on their website very quickly)
Update III: Nothing new from either Churchill or Lane, but the questions from viewers show that the general public isn't nearly as gullible or misinformed as Churchill or Lane might wish. During this segment, Lane claims to be eager to put Churchill's case before a jury, but we'd surmise that only a jury comprised of Ethnic Studies students/"scholars" would find for The Perfesser.
Update IV: Over at the Weasel Times & Stoat Intelligencer, commenter Steamboat McGoo observes that the viewers of "Your Show" gave Churchill "a real loincloth wedgie on-air tonight." That sums it up perfectly.
Update V-VI: Laurie points out in the PB comments that Churchill admits to plagiarizing the Dam The Dams literature; The Perfesser even notes "They were glad I'd done it." And Noj catches David Lane in a whopper: a claim that CU President Hank Brown orchestrated the attack on Churchill "from the beginning", which must have been especially difficult, since, although the Churchill Burlesque has been an SRO show since January 2005, Brown didn't assume the helm at CU until June of that year (and prior to that, he was merely an alumnus). Although to be fair to Lane, Brown was the president of the Daniels Fund, which in 2005 delayed up to $400,000 worth of grant requests to CU, partially because of the Churchill Burlesque.
Meanwhile, Drunkablog highlights a Denver Post columnist's take on Churchill's inconsistent application of the First Amendment (also, ht Retired Bill, who sent us a link to the DP column this morning, but we were too groggy (pronounced "lazy") to post)
From our Hey, At Least Ward Churchill Doesn't Make You Go Blind department: "An educational outrage in Boulder that makes Ward Churchill look insignificant."
Never OT: Bill Whittle pens yet another excellent essay, this time concerning The Remnant
Not Really OT: Separatist graduations proliferate at UCLA
Although we've seen nothing in the press to corroborate this, those zany anonymities over at wardchurchill.net are saying the P&T panel declined (on June 1) to change their recommendation that Ward Churchill be demoted and suspended without pay for a year (instead of concurring with CU President Hank Brown to fire The Perfesser).
On June 1, the panel informed Pres. Brown that, despite his recommendation for dismissal, it stood by its decision. Nonetheless, on June 7, Brown decided to override the faculty committee’s recommendation and sent his recommendation to the Regents to fire Prof. Churchill.
Following up on yesterday's posting of the Privilege and Tenure Panel's "Arguments Against Dismissal", we post the panel's "Arguments Favoring Dismissal" (page iii-v):
...As damning as these arguments may seem (particularly when compared to the anemic (and rather irrelevant) arguments given against dismissal), we leave it as an exercise to the student to find the various clues the panel gives that indicate which direction it will take when recommending punishment.
- Professor Churchill has repeatedly plagiarized, as well as, fabricated and falsified information to support his views on American Indian history. Plagiarism is a serious offense as it constitutes the theft of others' ideas and work. Fabrication and falsification of information are simply wrong, and antithetical to the Academy's attempt to gain a veridical understanding of the world. Although fabrication and falsification of information in such areas as medical research would likely have far more dire (direct) consequences than the same behaviors in Ethnic Studies, when it comes to standards of conduct the University must treat faculty equally in different disciplines. Therefore, the significance of Professor Churchill's Research Misconduct cannot be minimized based on such reasoning as nobody died, or millions of dollars in grants were not lost. Finally, the repeated nature of his behavior renders it highly improbable that it was accidental or inadvertent.
- The nature of the offenses here involving plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification goes to the heart of academic enterprise and undermines public faith in the University of Colorado and in universities more generally.
- Both the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct and the Privilege and Tenure Panel Regarding Dismissal for Cause found that Professor Churchill had committed multiple acts of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. Furthermore, the Privilege and Tenure Panel found by a "clear and convincing" standard that multiple instances of Professor Churchill's behavior fell "...below minimum standards of professional integrity." In the event of conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity, Article 5, Part C, Section 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents permits dismissal when the Board of Regents judge dismissal to be for "...the good of the university...."
- Such dismissal is for the good of the University as it communicates in the strongest terms possible to faculty, staff, and students, as well as external constituents that CU will not tolerate unethical conduct.
- The apparent fact that Professor Churchill is either unwilling or unable to acknowledge his errors renders it likely that his Research Misconduct will continue.
- This kind of behavior would almost certainly lead to some sort of sanctions against a student who was found guilty of these offenses. Within the University of Colorado, the exact processes for evaluating academic dishonesty are delegated by the Regents to individual schools and colleges, so it is difficult to say exactly how a student found guilty of these offenses would be punished—that would depend on various factors and influences—but we should clearly hold our faculty to standards at least as high as the standards to which we hold our students and punish transgressions at least as severely.
- If the protections afforded faculty by "academic freedom" are left limitless and without definition, and thereby used to effectively permit the Research Misconduct documented in these investigations and hearing, the concept of academic freedom is in danger of being abandoned by society and effectively removed from those academicians who would use academic freedom to pursue improvement of the human condition. Therefore, dismissal of Professor Churchill clearly communicates that "academic freedom" does not include the right to plagiarize, fabricate, and falsify. However, the panel is in unanimous agreement that Professor Churchill's now-well-known 9-11 essay is constitutionally protected free speech.
- Ignorance of Regential Policy and Standards regarding plagiarism and other evidence of Research Misconduct cannot and should not be considered valid excuses.
- The issues here include allegations that Professor Churchill plagiarized, fabricated, and falsified facts related to Indian (Native American) history. This area of study is still in its infancy as compared to numerous disciplines and programs. The Academy is finally beginning to recognize Ethnic Studies and has started to legitimize and given [sic] credence to research in this area. For many scholars in Ethnic Studies, publishing meant work appearing in what would be considered non-mainstream journals; today, evaluation of that type of scholarly work is beginning to be considered as valid research. Some scholars in Ethnic Studies may focus on rewriting historical ethnological data in search for "truth," but this does not support nor does it grant anyone the right to plagiarize, falsify, or fabricate evidence.
The P&T report on the interminable Ward Churchill burlesque lists both "Arguments Favoring Dismissal" and "Arguments Against Dismissal." Here are the panel's arguments against dismissal (page v-vii, emphasis in the original):
- Proportionality. Dismissal is the ultimate penalty in the direct power of the University to administer. The Laws of the Regents specify that a faculty member may be dismissed for conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional behavior, but they wisely do not require it. It should obviously be reserved for the most serious cases, particularly when considering the dismissal of a tenured faculty member. The misconduct in this case is serious and requires some sort of sanctions, but it does not, for example, sink to the level of fabricating laboratory data in an effort to obtain government money, ignoring human subjects research guidelines and endangering the lives or health of subjects, or situations where the misconduct effectively and clearly sets back progress or research in an important field. That is, the case shows misbehavior, but not the worst possible misbehavior.
- The Nature of American Indian Studies. This case has included substantial testimony about the nature of this field and allied fields. The field has been characterized by its newness as a discipline, by the lack of formally established standards, its concern with advocacy for groups who have been historically marginalized or excluded, and the need to confront and to challenge orthodox methods and conclusions that in their views have contributed to misrepresentation and exclusion of their cultures and history. Challenging existing approaches, putting uncomfortable things on the table for discussion—these are legitimate core activities for some in this field, and they view any attempt to force their challenge into the standards of the existing academy as harmful to their mission. The University need not, of course, accept conduct that is inherently dishonest or deceitful. It is important to the continued vibrancy of the University, though, that the debate on these challenges continue and continue within the University. Dismissal in this case will be seen by some in this community as an overly harsh reaction to the mistakes and failings of the research at issue in this case.
- Previous committees examining this case were not unanimous in recommending dismissal.
- Other scholars found guilty of this kind of misbehavior (and perhaps worse) have not always been punished as severely as the proposed dismissal. Several examples were provided in testimony.
- The chilling effect of dismissal. Dismissal in this case wil be widely interpreted (inside the University as well as outside) as indicating that challenges to existing methods, attitudes, and values may be met in the University of Colorado by disciplinary proceedings rather than left to the admittedly chaotic, turbulent, sometimes inefficient processes of academic debate. Academic debate is not streamlined or efficient, but it is better suited than discipline to sorting out many, probably most, of these conflicting issues. By invoking the most extreme sanction, the University will be effectively (though perhaps unintentionally) telling a number of important constituencies to pull their punches, rather than debate the issues.
- Potential perceived abuse of the University's disciplinary proceedings. Evidence admitted in this case suggests strong differences of opinion among academicians involved in Indian Studies. Some of the charges against Professor Churchill may have come from people in factions opposed to his views. The University has a legitimate need to maintain its standards visibly, and impose sanctions for inadmissible behavior, subject to due process requirements, but it must also be aware of the danger that lurks in the perception of inadvertently allowing its own disciplinary proceedings to be used as a way of "settling old scores" or of deciding issues better left to the marketplace of ideas. Invoking dismissal will fuel this fire, not quench it. As former CU Professor Evelyn Hu-DeHart remarked in evaluating a 1994 allegation concerning Professor Churchill:As is often the nature of such intense political conflicts, personalities and personal issues are inevitably drawn in. However, I do not believe that the University has any business, nor any need, to become a party to this internecine political war in the Indian world. Yet, it seems to me that is precisely what Prof. Churchill's political opponents wish to happen.
We should still beware of getting into such situations, and keep them in mind as we choose our sanctions in this case.
From the P&T report to CU President Hank Brown (page ii):
Summary of Conclusions
The panel has reviewed the evidence admitted before our panel in the light of our specific charge. We have reviewed the testimony of the witnesses at the Dismissal for Cause Hearing, and the evidence admitted at that hearing and after it. We have also, as individuals, reviewed video recordings of any parts of the Dismissal for Cause Hearing for those few situations for which an individual could not be physically present. Our review has been limited to the evidence actually admitted through the hearing process. Our conclusions, described in more detail in following sections, are:
- We find Professor Churchill did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the University engaged in Selective Enforcement of its rules concerning Research Misconduct. While we did find a preponderance of the evidence of one element of Selective Enforcement ("but for" causation), we found that Professor Churchill had not met his burden of proof in showing the second required element of motivation.
- We find that Professor Churchill did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the investigation of allegations of Research Misconduct denied him his right to Due Process. While specific mistakes were made, as described more fully in subsequent sections, we find that Professor Churchill has not met his burden of proof in showing that the process was so fundamentally flawed tas to deprive him of his constitutional right to Due Process, noting in particular that he has now had subsequent opportunity to provide additional information and clarification, which this panel has taken into account.
- We find that the University showed by clear and convincing evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in "conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity" in several specific instances, though in fewer such instances than those in which Research Misconduct was previously found.
Our Ward Churchill Speaking Truth In the Teeth of Power Quote of the Day: "[I]n the matters at issue [of ghost-writing several essays], I'm the ghostwriter. The onus of misconduct, if any, thus resides with those who've put their names on my work." (from the P&T report, page 63, emphasis in original)
From the Denver Post: Churchill wants meeting with CU regents
University of Colorado ethnic-studies professor Ward Churchill will formally request a hearing before the Board of Regents in response to college president Hank Brown's letter last week recommending his dismissal for academic misconduct, his attorney said today.
Attorney David Lane said Churchill has 20 days to respond in writing with a request for a private hearing. After that hearing, unless the regents choose to reinstate Churchill and forgo all forms of discipline, Lane said, Churchill will sue the university in federal court for violating his rights to free speech.
Lane and Churchill have asserted all along that the investigation into the professor's scholarship was retaliation for an essay he wrote comparing some World Trade Center victims of the 9/11 attack to Nazi Adolf Eichmann.
Looks like Ward Churchill and his legal sock-puppet David Lane will be appearing on Denver's NBC affiliate this weekend, on "Your Show" (Sunday, June 17, 6pm MDT) . (ht Daniel Ong)
Mildly OT:Looks like Betsy "C-Word" Hoffman is choosy about the academics she defends. Churchill, Si! Gonzalez, No!
Not Really OT: MarathonPundit reports "Norman G. Finkelstein, a DePaul [University] political science professor who many call a holocaust-minimizer and an anti-semitic Jew, has been denied tenure." Expect the usual suspects to see this as a sign of the Apocalypse; as Drunkablog notes, Peter N. Kirstein already does.
Churchill exceptionalism is taken down a peg or two over at Drunkablog
...speaking of Drunkablog, he also comments on AAUP president Cary Nelson's recent yawn-inducing Moral Equivalence Podcast (we may have the title wrong)
Professor Tom Mayer's love sonnet to Ward Churchill ("...a far more profound, original, knowledgeable, productive and important scholar...") gets a reprint in the Rocky's LTTEs today; when we called Mayer a churchillian coprophage a year ago, we never realized how sickeningly prescient we were. (ht Retired Bill)
Update: We recently found video of Tom Mayer's impassioned defense of Churchill
Remember that "ex-Churchill student" we spoke of a few days ago as showing promise? Well, he proves incapable, in the end, of rising above his "education"
From the IHE comments section:
Hey, listen up you bunch of buzzards! (five pistol salute) With the exception of Professor Eckstein, I haven’t heard any of you who call Ward Churchill “a fraud,” actually reference the content of his work in ANY meaningful way. Have you read him? Do you have any idea what his work is about? My guess is not....to which "Pub" responds eloquently
Do you know about the forced marches through Oklahoma? The children tortured under the assimilation policy? Do you know about the weapons tested on the Shoshone Nation? Do you know about how languages were banished and exterminated and people were killed simply for dancing? Do you know how these people were tormented? Their hunting grounds paved, their bison all but eradicated, their women sterilized against their will? People relocated and trapped on barren lands, put to work in coal mines, and left mostly to die? Do you know any of these things?
Do you know what it’s still like on reservations? Meth labs, diabetes, people who don’t know how to be white and don’t know how to be indian either? Mothers psychotically molesting their children. Teens committing suicide. In the cities grown men are drooling liked warped toddlers and rolling around in gutters, addicted to crack and getting raped in prisons?
So what if Ward Churchill gets a few dates wrong? So what if he wants to be an indian? Some of you actually think he planned on getting rich by pretending to be native? I don’t think any of you understand what he was writing about or fighting for. He’s not a fraud. He’s one of the most dedicated and intensely honest men I know.
This isn’t about “serious research misconduct.” Are you kidding me? Why do you think those kids in L.A. burned down Garfield High Auditorium a few weeks ago. It’s phrases like “serious research misconduct,” that do it to them.
Ward is not a selfish person. He’s spent his whole career writing and giving testimony to the struggles of others and fighting for their rights! Fire Ward Churchill? No way, we need more men like him!
Of course people are afraid of him. Call him crazy is the first thing they’ll do. They’re afraid because he tells all their dirty secrets. It’s actually a testimony to how great of a country America is that he’s lasted as long as he has, because in other countries and under other governments, he would have been out of his job years ago. Maybe jailed and shot.
Well they got him this time around. That they did. And shame on me for getting all wrapped up in it there for awhile. Oh he should be “dismissed,” I say. Oh he should be “re-educated.” What an obnoxious kiss-ass I am. That kind of talk is liable to get me shot at in some rooms.
No Ward is just on another level. You bet your well-educated asses he’s dangerous, and if you think you’re making yourselves any safer by getting rid of him, you ought to think twice, because this man has the hearts of “the people.” And if “the people,” ever find out you’ve turned against them, you might just find your office in flames and your head on a pike and a pitchfork through your spine. I’m just saying.
Slim, you better sit down for this one. A good case can be made that Ward Churchill has done more cumulative damage to Native Americans than any man in history. By portraying himself as NA he has created an indelible image of a professional Native American as unstable, hostile, belligerent, anti-American, dishonest and deceitful. The advancement potential for some 4.1 million Native Americans (2000 census) has been permanently diminished. Ward has done his part to poison the future of an entire population. His role is closer to that of a smallpox blanket than a savior....It occurs to us that the inability of Churchill's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion to demonstrate their support without resorting to invective, fabrication, and the entire catalog of logical fallacies is a more ringing indictment of public education than Horowitz's entire oeuvre.
Drunkablog takes a look at the LTTEs at the CU faculty organ Silver & Gold (including Benjie's now-ubiquitous attempt to write like an adult)
Also in S&G (ht Leah):
- P&T panel finds grounds to dismiss UCB professor (as Leah points out, this is a much more thorough article on the P&T committee's report than what has appeared in the Denver media. This article, btw, notes that during his dismissal hearing, Churchill introduced "new evidence" to support his assertions that Capt. John Smith intentionally introduced smallpox among the Wampanoag in the early 1600s. We sure hope that isn't the New York Times' US history timeline his DBAB has been crowing about).
- Brown calls for Churchill's dismissal
CU apparently sent out a press release today, which Westword got, but we (sniff!) didn't. And Westword's being coy about it
The missive was sent out shortly after another notice announced a special meeting of CU's Board of Regents on Friday, June 8. And while the initial e-mail made no mention of Churchill, spotlighting instead such matters as the issuance of "university enterprise revenue bonds," McKinney felt compelled to stress that the exclusion was purposeful. "Please be aware that there will be NO discussion regarding professor Churchill at this meeting," she wrote. At this point, regents apparently fear that if Churchill's name comes up in any way, they'll get absolutely nothing of substance done. No wonder Brown wants a separation of Churchill and the state university.
From Ward Churchill's curriculum vitae: "Selected" grants The Perfesser has received:
- Lannan Foundation [misspelled "Lanaan" on c.v.] Residency for Writers, 2001 (to draft three chapters of Perversions of Justice)
- University of Colorado IMPART Grant, 1995 (to conduct research for A Little Matter of Genocide)
- Bishop Foundation Distinguished Lectureship, University of Hawaii at Manoa [misspelled "Minoa" on c.v.], 1994
- National Endowment for the Humanities Public Education Grant, 1990-1991 (to conduct conference series at Alfred University)
- National Lawyer's Guild [misspelled "Guilt" on c.v.] grant in aid, 1990 (to complete COINTELPRO Papers)
We thought it odd that the 59-year-old Ward Churchill would be hanging out at a Propagandhi concert, until we saw the band's Wikipedia entry. Somehow, we'd always imagined The Perfesser to be more of an Amy Grant fan.
Speaking of saxifrage (and who isn't?), this morning we received an email from Ernesto Vigil containing the following:
To: Critics and Supporters of Ward Churchill
From: Ernesto B. Vigil, Denver
Re: Publications and publishers of Prolific Author Ward Churchill
Since Pirate Ballerina has posted an account that purports to be from a former student of Churchill, a student who alleges that Churchill sold 5 of his own publications as assigned texts to his student, for the price of $150, both supporters and critics of Churchill should take time to sort of these matters before jumping to conclusions.
For example, the student's true name is unknown, and it is not clear when this student studied under Churchill. Moreover, nearly ANY matter involving Churchill will not be what it appears on first glance, will frequently be the reverse of what it appears, and the twists and turns of his endeavors will prove to be more crooked than a bucket of snakes.
While the matters raised about Churchill's sale of books to his captive audience students gets sorted out (hopefully), friends and critics of Churchill may want to investigate a few additional items of the "prolific" publications of Ward Churchill.
For example, the acknowledgements (p. vi) in Churchill's 1993 "Struggle for the Land" state that "the Saxifrage Group" assisted Wart in "proofing and indexing" this book.
Did Wart pay Saxifrage for these services?
In the 2002 re-publication of Wart's "The COINTELPRO Papers," the copyright page shows the "[p]age design and production" for this edition were done "by Saxifrage Publications." Did Wart pay Saxifrage for these services?
In his gratitude to Saxifrage, Wart listed Saxifrage among the "Organizational Contacts" for his readers on page 328 of this edition.
Saxifrage's address was listed as 1484 Wicklow Street, Boulder, Colorado 80303. And it is just a coincidence, of course, that 1484 Wicklow Street in the home address of Mr. Wart Churchill, according the the August 28, 2006, Boulder County Voter Registration form, a form that shows him to have been a registered Republican since [at least] January 3, 2005.
In Wart's 1996 "From a Native [??] Son," Wart abuses his readers by torturing them with a long recitation of the "Works by [the] Author," eleven pages of every "book" he published, every anthology to which he contributed (under his various aliases, like "M. Annette Jaimes," aka "Marianna Guerrero," etc.), and he concludes his tedious list by citing the various prefaces, forewords, and introductions he has written.
A reader will note that Ward repeatedly cited himself in the above-cited book via the approximately eleven essays he had written for two journals, "New Studies on the Left," apparently written to convince folk that Wart is a "leftist," and his essays penned in "Issues on Radical Therapy."
What expertise Wart's communications degrees give him to write about therapy matters is another question to ponder, but concerned readers should first ponder a bit more on the entity known as Saxifrage Publications Group, since "New Studies on the Left" evolved from "Issues in Radical Therapy," its forerunner, were BOTH journals were publications of Saxifrage Publications.
Lastly, in 2005, Dun and Bradstreet, Inc., published a two-page data sheet that shows the registered address for Saxifrage is the home address of Wart Churchill; three emploees were allegedly working for Saxifrage; the June 1999 phone number for Saxifrage was (303) 673-9404; and annual sales for Saxifrage were listed as "$160,000."
Oh, yeah, Dun & Bradstreet further reported the name of the Chief Executive Officer for Saxifrage Publications Group: WARD CHURCHILL.
I read somewhere that people can be rewarded for reporting tax and business fraud to the IRS, but I doubt anything would happen to Ward Churchill, and, if so, that would substantiate the reason why certain critics of Churchill refer to him as "Ward of the State."
I urge critics AND supporters of Churchill to delve more deeply into his "publications" business, a true bucket of snakes...
Ernesto B. Vigil
...we note that Saxifrage also uses a Denver PO box, which appears to belong to the "Denver LPSG" (Leonard Peltier Support Group), and which is also an address used by J. Vander Wall, Churchill' co-author on Agents of Repression and The COINTELPRO Papers. Churchill's home address, btw, has also been the address of the Feminist/Socialist/Anarchist Collective.
Update: As we noted in this post's comment section, one of the more interesting factoids about the flowering plant genus saxifraga is that it is noted for its ability to split rocks upon which it has rooted. No doubt Churchill chose the name to suggest change—but what change? Is Western civilization the "rock" that Churchill and his band of chickenhat-wearing louts will eventually destroy (and how's that going, by the way?)? Or (as we suggested satirically a few months back) is Churchill an agent provocateur whose 30-year mission has been to destroy the "rock" of Victim Studies from within (certainly been successful at this)? Or (and we sort of favor this one) is Churchill just a big-hearted but simple flower child of the 60s who thought the saxifrage was, like, so cool-lookin'?
David Horowitz makes far too much of a former Ward Churchill student's conversion from True Believer to, well, um, True Believer. On the other hand, any student who pulls only a 'C' in one of Churchill's classes shows promise. And we do learn something of Churchill's professorial ethics from the student (posting as "Canary Slim"):
The thing about him that worried me pretty much right away, and even made me a little upset was that every book assigned for the class I had with him was written BY him. I don’t care if you’re Albert Einstein teaching physics, I think you have got to teach multiple perspectives on a subject. Right?Update: Drunkablog takes a closer look at Churchill book prices.
To me that was a warning sign of someone who might be desperately insecure, or possibly even pathological narcissistic. And, on the second or third day of class, he made us all go down to his office and pay him IN CASH for all five books that he was requiring. Five books, all written by him! It was almost $150.00! I almost dropped the class after that, but he had me intrigued, so I stuck with it.
Not All That OT: The World Series of Victimhood Poker (via The Weasel Times & Stoat Intelligencer)
Is it possible that CU has assigned yet another group (with rockets yet!) to study the 'Ward Churchill' phenomenon?
Churchill's dog, Benjie, learns in today's Daily Camera LTTE column (and the numerous comments) that the world is not quite the echo chamber he's accustomed to over at DBAB Central. (ht TDR)
Ward Churchill was interviewed on the Denver Fox affiliate yesterday; here's an excerpt, and for those who live in Colorado (and just can't get enough of The Perfesser's unique brand of blah-blah), the interview will be rebroadcast in its entirety at 5:30pm Mountain Time today. (ht )
Speaking of Ward Churchill doppelganger (and tryworks security guard) "Charley Arthur," it's been 62 days since he promised to post an hour-long video "proving" Churchill's Indian ancestry on wardchurchill.net. Additionally, it's been six days since "Charley" asserted without proof that it was a matter of record that Churchill protested Mimi Wesson's chairmanship of the investigating subcommittee "forcefully and repeatedly."
Update: "Charley Arthur" explains, point by point, what the video he has yet to post would prove, were he ever to get around to posting it.
Correction: As we noted in an update (first item), "Charley Arthur" is wetting his pants with glee at our June 1 error (the page numbers noted in that item appear to reference the subcommittee's report, rather than the texts named). "Charley" then directs our attention to pages 281-282 (all footnotes), and to the middle of page 305, of Robinson's Rotting Faces. Unfortunately, none of those pages indicates that Robinson believed smallpox vaccine was intentionally withheld from the Indians; in fact, page 305 discusses how the clerk of Fort Union, Larpenteur, made a vaccine from the scraped sores of a smallpox victim, and inoculated the Indians with it in a vain attempt to save lives.
From our Sloppy Seconds department, Point 3:
The Committee states that it “found no evidence” supporting Professor Churchill’s claims that vaccine intended for Indians was withheld at Forts Union and Clark and, therefore, concluded that he had “fabricated those statements” (p.78, emphasis added).
This statement is directly contradicted by the Committee’s own acknowledgment of two sources referenced by Professor Churchill, Evan S. Connell’s Son of the Morning Star: Custer and the Little Bighorn (pp.74-75) and R.G. Robertson’s Rotting Face: Smallpox and the American Indian (pp.76-77).
Unfortunately, there is no mention of vaccine (withheld or otherwise) or smallpox on pp. 74-75 of the Connell book, and there is no mention of vaccine (withheld or otherwise) or smallpox on pp. 76-77 of Robertson's book. Perhaps the Ethnic Studies "scholars" involved with this latest complaint are referencing the Reader's Digest Condensed versions of the books.
Update: Ward Churchill's doppelganger (and tryworks security guard) "Charley Arthur", accompanied by his dog, Benjie, are wetting their pants with glee at our error (the page numbers noted above appear to reference the subcommittee's report, rather than the texts named). "Charley" then directs our attention to pages 281-282 (all footnotes), and to the middle of page 305, of Robinson's Rotting Faces. Unfortunately for "Charley" (and his little dog, too!), none of those pages indicates that Robinson believed smallpox vaccine was intentionally withheld from the Mandans; in fact, page 305 discusses how the clerk of Fort Union, Larpenteur, made a vaccine from the scraped sores of a smallpox victim, and inoculated the Indians with it (a tragic mistake, as it turned out). We're guessing that when Churchill and his Dune Buggy Attack Battalion wish to reference something to support their arguments (and they don't have time to write something pseudonymously), they simply pick a page number at random, from some book they've heard about. After all, that sort of proof has always worked with Ethnic Studies "scholars."
From our [We Really Hope This Is] Unrequited Love* department: Professor Tom Mayer's most recent LTTE (ht Leah):
W¯ard Churchill is a far more profound, original, knowledgeable, productive, and important scholar than any of his critics. Comparing his scholarly credentials to those of the man who has recommended his dismissal is perfectly ludicrous. The case against Ward Churchill is without intellectual substance and without ethical merit.
The firing of Ward Churchill would be an immense blow to academic freedom and to the educational quality that academic freedom protects. It would also be an immense loss to the intellectual community at the University of Colorado. I will continue to do everything within my power to prevent this from happening.
...in fact, it looks like the entire Dune Buggy Attack Battalion sat down over the holiday and wrote letters to the editor, as if a flurry of sudden penmanship after two years of silence will somehow Save Ward Churchill From The Consequences Of His Own Actions! (ht Leah, TDR)
In addition to the Daily Camera LTTE page linked above, there's the Colorado Daily, and the Denver Post (including a missive from Churchill's dog, Benjie, as well as a reprise of Tom Mayer's torch song quoted above)
* Not that there's anything wrong with that.
From our Sloppy Seconds department, Point 1: One of the examples used to support Churchill's claim of "pretty strong circumstantial evidence that [Captain John] Smith introduced smallpox among the Wampanoags as a means of clearing the way for the invaders" is a link to an online version of William Bradford's Of Plymouth Plantation (pp. 175):
[T]hey begane to see that Squanto sought his owne ends, and plaid his owne game, by putting the Indeans in fear, and drawing gifts from them to enrich him selfe; making them beleeve he could stur up warr against whom he would, and make peece for whom he would. Yea, he made them beleeve they kept the plague buried in the ground, and could send it amongs whom they would, which did much terrifie the Indeans, and made them depend more on him, and seeke more to him then to Massasoyte, which proucured him envIe, and had like to have cost him his life.
All this is "pretty strong circumstantial evidence" of is Squanto's attempts to impress his fellow "Indeans" with the fearsome and mystical powers of the English, and to enhance his own standing as an intermediary to same. Incidentally, we have to marvel at the scholarship of this latest group of complainers (including several Ethnic Studies professors and two attorneys, yet!) that marshals its "facts" so poorly that even two bloggers and a New Jersey cop can refute them.
From our Sloppy Seconds department, Point 1 (part II): Another "source" the complainers cite is
“New England Indians, from Massachusetts to Maine, suffered a smallpox [epidemic] from 1616-1619.” Sana Loue, Gender, Ethnicity, and Health Research (New York: Kluwer Academic, 1999) p.136.
For the moment, let's ignore the fact that an entire gaggle of Ethnic Studies "scholars" (and two attorneys!) can't even proofread their own citations. Loue's text cites no source for this assertion; one could easily (and probably correctly) say Loue got this factoid from Churchill's own fabrications. And is a New York Times timeline of US history really the best evidence these "scholars" have to offer? High school book reports are held to higher academic standards than the works of Ethnic Studies professors. It would seem that with each new counter-complaint, these otherwise useless idiots demonstrate succinctly their irrelevancy to the honest pursuit of knowledge, and the agenda-driven nature of their "field of study."
Now, back to typos. While failure to proofread carefully might be attributable to innocent error, what is one to make of the fact that the gaggle omits the sentence following the cited Loue text: "The infection was believed to be transmitted from European fishermen on the coast"? The Perfesser noted recently that "[a] random group of homeless people under a bridge would be far more intellectually sound and principled than anything I've encountered at the university so far." Assuming Churchill is speaking of his direct experience with other "scholars" in the field of Ethnic Studies, we'd have to concur with that assessment.