“The present controversy has focused on only a tiny fraction of Prof. Churchill's work. I have read some of his books, and find them to be well-argued and intensively documented in a scholarly manner. He occasionally has referenced my work, and he has done so properly. I realize that some of what he has written has incited controversy. I believe that engagement in controversy is proper for a scholar; any line between "activism" and "scholarship" is artificial. In my work I have advanced ideas regarding the role of the Iroquois Confederacy in the evolution of democracy that have become the object of intense scrutiny and intense controversy. Controversy and activism are necessary ingredients in the contest of ideas on which the academy should be based.”

BTW: Johansen has himself been criticized for falsifying his sources accused of writing historical fiction, and this historical fabulism has been called "an elaborate hoax." Additionally, there may be some unacknowledged, perhaps serendipitous, and possibly unintentional mutual back-scratching, since Churchill has defended Johansen's scholarship and endorsed a book Johansen edited.
Update: Johansen told a reporter today about his committee membership: "I'm going to do my best to be fair." Well, then. Nuff said, eh?
Update: Professor Johansen is now threatening PB with legal action


Robert Williams:

“...[A]nyone who's followed the field of American Indian Studies for the past three decades would immediately recognize Ward Churchill as an important scholar, writer and advocate, whose published works are widely cited and relied upon. His body of written work and teaching has inspired a generation of younger Native students and activists to unashamedly assert indigenous sovereignty and Indian rights over a broad domain of intellectual and cultural life in American society. In many ways and in many forums, he has helped to shape the discourse of the modern Indian rights movement. He is, in fact, the unquestioned intellectual leader of a vanguard movement of AIS scholars who brandish a no-holds-barred, no compromise form of Indian political rhetoric that upsets and even incites many non-Indians.  Professor Churchill also oftentimes challenges Indian people themselves to take responsibility for an unthinking, uncritical adoption of non-indigenous, colonially-dominated ways of thought and talking about Indians and also about contemporary American society.

His most challenging writings therefore make him few friends, while earning him many enemies. While at times tendentious and almost always pushing the envelope, if not tearing it to pieces, Professor Churchill, through sheer force of intellect, energy, and a radical reformer's zeal, has established himself as a major scholar and public intellectual when it comes to the field of American Indian Studies. Some people may not like that, but what does one expect of a tenured professor who teaches and writes about American Indians in a highly respected ethnic studies department at a major research university that supposedly values academic freedom—that he would only have nice things to say about this country in his scholarship?”

Marianne Wesson(c.v.):

"A number of my colleagues took a view I don't share [about Churchill's "little Eichmann" essay]. If you believe he had the right to say what he did without professional penalty (which I do), you need to find something worthwhile in what he wrote," she explains. "You shouldn't have to struggle for backhanded praise. It's important for us to say so."

OT: Wesson had some rather sane things to say about CU Boulder's athletics program. And here's an interesting article about Wesson from the Washington Post

 
Michael Radelet:
We find no comments, although it is possible, even probable, that Radelet was among CU's Arts & Science Council who voted for the ASC resolution defending Churchill's "right to free speech" and demanding the investigation into his conduct be stopped (although he is not listed as a signatory to the ad supporting Churchill that ran in the Daily Camera in March). Since Radelet is a nationally-known opponent to the death penalty, we can safely assume that that will not be on the table in the highly improbable event the Five Stooges find Churchill culpable. Radelet did co-sign a rather fussy open letter to then-CU president Betsy "C-Word" Hoffman scolding her for her use of the aforementioned C-word (third letter).


Marjorie McIntosh:
We find no comments. Perhaps Professor McIntosh, who appears to be the only professional historian on committee, will have gravitas sufficient to cow the exculpatory inclinations the others must certainly possess.



BTW: At approximately 7 o'clock this evening, we forwarded a link to this article to each of the Five Stooges. We'll keep you posted concerning any comments they may choose to make.

Also BTW: If you know of an internet citation of any of the Five Stooges commenting on Ward Churchill, let us know. Be sure to include the link to the comment in your email.

Update: Did we mention that PirateBallerina was the first to notice that at least two members of the Investigating Committee were something less than disinterested observers? And how is it a newspaper like the Denver Post, with vast resources and certainly more feet on the street than PB could ever muster, has yet to publish a single article about the questionable objectivity of some of the committee members? See this post for an explanation of the strikeout