More about Churchill at pirateballerina.com
| Author | Date/Time | Email Subject |
|---|---|---|
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/18/2005 10:55 | video tape |
|
Professor Churchill:
I'll keep this brief; I imagine you have plenty of email to wade
through. One of my readers has noted that while your attorney says the
video tape submitted with your response to the standing committee on
research misconduct is of "an initiation ceremony," the Denver
Post is saying it is a tape of UKB council meeting. I'm confused; were
two tapes submitted? Is David Lane incorrect? Is the Denver Post?
One other thing: is there any possibility your response to the committee
will be made public?
Thanks!
Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/18/2005 15:22 | Re: video tape |
|
My attorney erred, about submitting the (1) tape. It is referenced in my
response, but was not submitted.
It is of the relevant Band Council meeting, start to finish.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/18/2005 15:23 | Re: video tape |
|
Oops, sorry for forgetting to say, in response to your query, that, no,
I'll
not be making it public at present.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/18/2005 15:55 | Re: video tape |
| Thanks
for clearing that up, and for your speedy response. I had guessed that
Lane had erred (my second guess was that the Post's reporters had it
wrong). If I can ask another question (two-parter), I see that the UKB's current chief has rather vehemently repudiated your claim to associate membership to the band. Will this change the way you identify yourself at your various speaking engagements, and more importantly, how do you think this will affect your current situation vis-a-vis the misconduct committee and CU? Again, thanks for your speedy response on both my earlier questions. Jim Paine www.pirateballerina.com |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/19/2005 8:19 | Re: video tape |
|
Actually, it could as easily have been Brennan as David Lane. I don't
really
know which. Doesn't really matter in a certain sense. It was an error,
not a
deliberate misrepresentation, in my estimation.
As to Wycliffe's denial -- he's really in no position to
"repudiate" anything
on this score, having himself been a UKB member for only 3-4 years --
it's
flatly contradicted by the "smoking gun" of the tape, the
on-record statements
of Chief John Ross in 1994 (AFTER my membership was supposedly
"rescinded," I
might add), and on-record statements of persons on the Band membership
committee in February 2005 (the accuracy of which were reaffirmed to the
press
as recently as yesterday, as I understand it).
There's a whiff of "fraud" in the air at the moment, but it
ain't coming from
me.
Look, the Keetoowahs are a sovereign people. As such, they have a right
to
disenroll me or anyone else they want. What they do NOT have a right to
do is
rewrite history, even as a means of trying to get out from under the
weight of
reporters calling continuously -- as they have since January -- and/or
the
orchestated e-mail onslaught to which they are currently being subjected
by "concerned" white folks.
I'd not really blame them for disenrolling me at this point, but, since
they
never have, I remain an enrolled associate -- NOT "honorary"
-- member.
The fact is that I'd have no hesitation at resigning my membership to
spare
them the increasing heat they're taking -- all they ever had to do is
ask,
which they haven't -- that and stop pretending that the opposite of
everything
is true with respect to what my having been enrolled as an associate
member
confirmed.
Bottom line with regard to how I identify myself is, yeah, this will
change
it, but I can't say exactly how just yet. I am who I am, however, and
that
ain't changing.
Clear enough?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/22/2005 13:27 | Vietnam |
| Professor
Churchill: I've located a bio (or excerpts from a bio) that appears to be one used to accompany your artwork. According to the source, the bio is 24 years old. The relevant portion of the bio follows:
Now, much has been made of records released that appear to show you were a truck driver in Vietnam, or perhaps a PR writer, etc. One other fact: In his book Strong Hearts, Wounded Souls, Native American Veterans of the Vietnam War, Tom Holm quotes an anonymous "Creek/Cherokee veteran" who says remarkably similar things as you have said (e.g. the Jodi Rave interview). My questions are: 1. Does the military service noted above appear on any biographies you've submitted along with your art--or for that matter, submitted anywhere? 2. Did you, in fact, serve with the 101st airborne, the 4th Infantry Division, and/or do service on Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrols? 3. Are you, in fact, the "Creek/Cherokee veteran" Holm quotes in his book? (and yes, I'm aware that Holm himself is a "Creek/Cherokee veteran") Thanks. Jim Paine jwpaine@thorby.com www.pirateballerina.com |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/26/2005 9:03 | Re: Vietnam |
|
All in due time, Jim.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/26/2005 18:00 | Re: Vietnam |
|
I can appreciate that.
Just remember me when you do decide to talk about it. Jim Paine www.pirateballerina.com
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/26/2005 19:04 | A different subject |
|
By the way, you didn't happen to "ghostwrite" Jaimes'
dissertation, did you?
Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/27/2005 5:37 | Re: A different subject |
|
no comment
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/27/2005 5:42 | Re: Vietnam |
|
Okay.
But who, exactly, is it that I'm "remembering"?
You seem to know a lot about me, or think you do, but you're something
of a
blank slate. Fill me in a bit.
Start with what you find relevant about yourself. I may have a couple of
resulting questions, but, then again, maybe not. We'll see.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/27/2005 5:50 | Re: Vietnam |
| You
can read all I care to say about myself in this interview: http://thedrunkablog.blogspot.com/2005/04/drunkablog-interview-pirate-ballerinas.html |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/27/2005 6:12 | Re: Vietnam |
|
10-4. I'll have a look, but it'll be a couple of days before I get a
chance.
WC
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/28/2005 12:20 | Genealogist issues challenge |
|
[ courtesy www.pirateballerina.com]
Genealogist Issues Challenge to Ward Churchill Our colleague Jack Ott, who we mentioned in an earlier post had posted a well-researched Ward Churchill genealogy, has sent us an intriguing response to some comments made on our geneology post):
So how 'bout it, Ward? Would you be willing to take a simple DNA test that could put to rest all the hubub about your heritage? PirateBallerina would even spring for the $219. Naturally, we'll need a volunteer from the medical profession to draw the sample to--you know--ensure the sample doesn't come accidentally from someone else.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/31/2005 14:23 | Re: Genealogist issues challenge |
|
You're kidding, right?
If not, you're in genuine need of psychiatric assistance.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/31/2005 14:31 | Re: Genealogist issues challenge |
| No,
I'm not kidding. Wouldn't the results of the DNA test--if in your
favor--put to rest a great deal of superfluous debate? Actually, even if
the results were not in your favor, they would still put to rest all this
distracting debate over your ancestry. Jim Paine |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 5/31/2005 14:47 | Re: Genealogist issues challenge |
|
Would it? How so?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 5/31/2005 15:08 | Re: Genealogist issues challenge |
| If
the test showed Native American heritage, I, for one, would consider that
the final word on the matter--regardless of the percentage. If it did not,
then, well, you'd have to agree that you don't have Native American
heritage. I suppose you could still self-identify as a Native American,
but I suspect it would be harder to get intellectuals to buy it. On the
other hand, I suspect intellectuals will buy anything. Wasn't it the
Amazing Kreskin who said "For the believer, no proof is necessary.
For the skeptic, no proof is possible." On a personal note, I do confess to some confusion as to your motives for much of what you do. You're obviously bright and educated (whether self- or formally-), and I can't help but wonder what you think of the various anarchists, socialists, communists, and (here's that word again) "intellectuals" who have accepted everything you've said as gospel without bothering to check on the facts (I even felt a moment of sympathy for you when you were being interviewed by that cow-puppet in SF). Had I gotten the aforementioned groups to show their asses so blatantly, I believe I'd never stop laughing. Jim Paine |
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/5/2005 20:11 | Salida |
|
If you don't mind my asking, were you paid an honorarium by the
Central Colorado Humanists for speaking in Salida today? I ask because
even if they gave you their entire gate, I counted only 170 people
there, which would mean a gross of $1700--less than half of what I've
read you normally get for a speaking engagement.
Also, how would you rate the audience reception, as well as the
Q&A period? It seemed to me that there were more people there
eager to share their own private versions of the revolution and its
root causes than those interested in either confronting you or
supporting you (the student who "supports you, but didn't
understand a word you were saying" notwithstanding).
Thanks!
-Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/6/2005 7:02 | Re: Salida |
|
You were there?
Why didn't you come up and say hello before/after the talk?
Anyway, yeah, they paid me a pre-agreed honorarium, which I'd adjusted
to
their circumstances.
A note on my "normal" fee: It's been reported in the press
with about the same
accuracy is everything else (I'm actually enjoying watching them parse
my
footnotes, sometimes in the most tedious fashion, all the way back to my
college days, while they themselves can't even get little things like
the
YEARS of my Vietnam service, hires in the state system, promotion to
full
professor, etc., etc., correct; the chapter(s) dealing with press
coverage in
the book I'll eventually release on all this has already started to
shift from
a tone of ideological engagement to one of high comedy).
The "normal" fee is an institutional rate. Where community
groups are
concerned, I adjust all over the place, depending on who they are, the
nature
of the event, and so on, and so on, in combination with my own
availability,
state of fatigue, etc.
It would be complicated to try laying it all out out in print, but it
reduces
to this: I am my own product, and therefore do what/when I want. And
that
includes doing what I consider political work for any rate I choose
(including
free).
Bottom line? Don't believe the press-fostered image of my incurring a
vast
wealth as a result of speaking in a lot of venues. I do well enough that
one
piece underwrites the other, with some to spare, but I ain't really in
it for
the money. Never was.
Don't know whether I've clarified or further confused things for you.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/6/2005 7:13 | Re: Salida |
|
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I concur with you that the self-
described "space cadet" was a sad (and all too representative)
example.
But he was offset -- maybe more than -- by the high school girl who
seemed
more on top of the substance than most of the adults in the room. She's
the
hope. Agreed?
As to the overall self-congratulatory tone of the crowd, yeah, and I
said so
in radio interview right after the event (don't think that set too well,
but
that's the way it goes).
Here's the bottom line on this one, though: public sentiment is WAY
different
than the RMN -- and maybe you, too -- would have it. The more so at a
really
grassroots level than among the "enlightened" sector of the
mountain
communities assembled yesterday.
The response to me/what I say/do is not nearly as negative as the self-
styled "right" would have it, especially when people get a
chance to see/hear
me say/do it.
Cheers.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/6/2005 7:21 | Re: Salida |
| Thanks
for getting back to me. I fully intended to meet you in person, but a
head-on collision that clogged US 24 for six miles delayed my arrival, and
you disappeared at the end. I looked around outside, figuring you were out
there smoking and joking, but couldn't find you; instead I got grabbed by
a guy who is convinced you aren't railing against the right enemies. When
he started talking about Hegelian dialectic, I excused myself and fled. I kind of figured that you hadn't received the same fee they're reporting. It makes sense to adjust your fee to the event. I never figured you were in it for the money, though I'm not sure what you are in it for, since "US off the planet" isn't going to happen anytime soon. BTW: what were the years of your Vietnam service? I have 1966 to 1968, from the National Archives FOIA document circulating around the internet, I believe most other articles cite those same years. Was your term of service actually different? And more importantly, was your type of service different? A lot has been made of the light vehicle and projectionist training noted on that document; was your service actually something different? -Jim Paine |
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/6/2005 7:34 | Re: Salida |
| Totally
agree. A kid like that can make you actually proud of your culture. I hadn't expected the crowd to be in your corner, and I wasn't disappointed, but I also hadn't expected the few who stood and supported you (the long-haired Vet comes to mind). I've listened to enough of your speeches and interviews to know much of what you do is not unlike an extended Dennis Miller riff, and that at least some of the audience's response to you is in their self-congratulatory recognition of those references. That didn't play so well with Salida, where it seemed to me that many of your allusions met with silence borne of ignorance (not stupidity; the people who spoke--the space cadet notwithstanding--had good questions, though not particularly novel ones). One question I wish you had answered more completely had to do with "collateral damage." If one should disdain the Pentagon's consideration of civilian deaths as "collateral damage" shouldn't that same disdain and approbation apply to the deaths of the dishwashers and floorsweepers who died on 9-11? -Jim Paine |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/6/2005 15:14 | Re: Salida |
|
I was around at the sidem avoiding the Hegelian dialectic. In view of
that, I
guess I can't blame you for fleeing.
On "US Off the Planet," yeah, but perhaps "soon"
isn't the relevant framing. I
was always struck by Stokely's adage about being obliged to speak the
truth,
even if you can't practice it. The object, always, is to make people
look at
things in another way.
Anyhow, I'm most eager to hear what you're posing as an alternative (Go
ahead
and pitch it. Who knows? You might just sell me.)
Nice try on coming through the side door on the military angle. Like I
told
you last week, "in due time." Right now, with 5 RMN reporters
working
my "file" full time, etc., I need wings to stay above the
rather amazing
horseshit they're already shovling my way.
Believe it or not, the Vietnam stuff actually does have deep personal
meaning
to me, and I'm not going to open it up to the same gaggle of nattering
nabobs
of negativity -- to steal a line from Pat Buchanan via Spiro Agnew -- so
ill
versed in military matters that they're unaware that NOBODY got
"trained" as
a "jeep driver" (all you needed for that was a civilian
driver's licence).
I was, however, trained as a projectionist. It took 2 afternoons, as I
recall,
during the spring of 1967. It was done so that some of us could watch
movies
at night -- cable TV and such not being an option in those days -- thus
alleviating a significant amount of boredom.
No, I was not in Vietnam when that happened, and no, I was never
assigned as a
projectionist. Was never assigned as a jeep driver, either, for that
matter
(which is not to say I never drove a jeep).
So, yes, my assignment was "different." Actually,
"assignments were" would be
the more accurate way of putting it, given that I didn't do the same
thing all
the way through (a lot of us didn't in those days, maybe still).
You are correct about my service dates running from 1966-1968. But
that's NOT
the same as the dating of my Vietnam tour, which was Jan.-Nov. 68 (11
months
only; I ETSed in country and declined to extend).
Bottom line is that, contrary to the RMN on Saturday, I never set foot
in
Southeast Asia in 1967, never said I did, and so far as I know there's
not a
shred of paper suggesting anything other than 1968.(A clear case
of "journalistic fraud" and "fabrication of the
facts," eh?)
Beyond that, I'm not going until I'm finished dealing with some of this
other
crap.
When I'm ready, I'll fill you in. Meanwile, have another look at the
FOIA
sheet and see if you don't catch something rather incongruous thereon
(Hint:
they actually mentioned it in that first "bio-feature" on my
run by the Post;
that was on Saturday -- on Sunday, the same piece ran, but that
particular bit
of information had been deleted, and reporter's ever mentioned it
again).
Shifting fronts before closing, who is this guy Jim Ott? He does really
good
work (perhaps in spite of himself). He actually provided the last piece
of a
puzzle concerning Joshua Tyner into place for me, and I'd like to home
him in
on a couple of other mysteries, if you think he'd be game.
Let me know.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/6/2005 18:51 | Re: Salida |
|
When I was a little kid and did something hurtful to others, my grampa
would
sometimes say "Here, see how you like it," and do something
similar to me. The
point being, if you don't want something done to you, don't do it to
other
people. If you do, you've really no complaint when they respond in kind.
Collateral damage? The term is not only degrading, it's utterly
dehumanizing.
AND it's been standard jargon at DoD press briefings
"explaining" the mass
death of Others since at least as far back as 1990.
I've not detected a groundswell of public outrage about it, have you?
So I thought maybe the "public" might benefit from seeing how
it felt to have
a few of its own discribed -- dismissed? -- in the same fashion.
I never figured they'd like it. But, again, that's exactly the point:
Neither
does anyone else.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/6/2005 19:34 | Re: Salida |
| I
see your point. But is there no case wherein a war is justified despite
the accidental deaths of innocents? -Jim Paine |
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/6/2005 19:57 | Jack Ott |
Just
heard back from Jack (not "Jim") Ott, the genealogist you were
interested in talking to. He's declining any correspondence with you. He
further notes:
-Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/7/2005 7:37 | Re: Jack Ott |
|
No, it wasn't.
And this isn't either, but it strikes me as peculiar that Ott isn't more
interested in Eliza Jane and what the "family feud" was about
that resulted in
her/her daughter's death. Suppose he's afraid of what he'd find?
In any event, I'm interested in more recent stuff.
Who are the other genealogists?
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/7/2005 7:45 | Re: Salida |
|
Yeah, probably. But that would first of all presume that such deaths are
genuinely accidental. And you can't make a case for accidental deaths in
a
context where the perpetrators are actually sitting down and computing
the
anticipated extent of "collateral damage" resulting from their
actions (as the
Pentagon does on a routine basis), much less studying ways/means of
INCREASING
it a U.S. strategic bombing theorists did vis-a-vis Japan clear back in
World
War II.
Then there was the matter of Hell Roarin' Jake Smith in the Philippines,
eh?
The question is ultimately a mere abstraction, don't you think?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/7/2005 9:01 | Re: Salida |
|
Re: Jake Smith, et al
I think a scorched earth policy can have a legitimate purpose. For one thing, it's proven to be far more effective than trying "to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony." Your remarks in what everyone now calls "the infamous essay" capitalize on the guilt some feel for the inevitable results of enforcing national policy ( I won't go into how legitimate your numbers are; I've dealt with those already). I don't feel that guilt. Re: Jack Ott, other genealogists I should have said "genealogist (singular). He's a cop whose integrity I trust; we worked together on the first version of PB's genealogy, at which time we both agreed that it was possible that we might actually uncover Indian heritage for you--and we both also agreed that that was just as newsworthy--perhaps more so. If we had an agenda, we understood and agreed that the truth was more important. I say this so you understand that I trust this genealogist's integrity. Re: Alternative to US off the planet I don't have one, unless it is this: Move on. Nothing can repay the Native Americans who are dead thanks to governmental ignorance, fraud, deception, well-meant intentions that went horribly awry, and intentional belligerence. Reparations of any kind to the grandchildren of those dead Indians won't bring a single one of them back to life. Calling for the US out of North America is--if that is your honest goal--tilting at windmills and--if your goal is to capitalize on "white guilt"--eventually self-defeating. The gaggle of idiots you attracted during your SF visit should have convinced you of that. -Jim Paine
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/7/2005 9:51 | Re: Salida |
| btw:
I don't denigrate your Vietnam service, nor the epiphany you say you had
there. I am a Vietnam Era vet (US Navy; the closest I ever got to Vietnam
was on a destroyer 20 miles off the coast, plane-guarding for the USS
Enterprise). Anyone who put their life on the line for their country
(regardless of their doubts about the legitimacy of the risk), whether
drafted or volunteer, has my respect. My question has always been the nature of your service, not the value of it. -Jim Paine |
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/7/2005 11:42 | Professor Saiko's defense |
|
I've found a posting on the internet of a new "update"
letter from your wife to "friends and colleagues." I'm
assuming it is, in fact, her update, but it is missing attachments the
update mentions, and there are a couple of typos that lead me to
believe it may have been re-typed rather than cut-and-pasted.
Is there any chance I might be able to get a full copy of that Update,
including attachments?
BTW: She states your case better than you do.
-Jim Paine
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/7/2005 12:41 | Professor SaiTo's defense |
|
Sorry for the misspelling. It was most certainly not intentional.
-Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/7/2005 15:27 | Re: Professor Saiko's defense |
|
I'll ask her, by way of forwarding your e-mail.
You'll get no argument from me on the quality of her statements,
although she
may disagree with the more subjective aspect of your assessment.
Whatever.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/7/2005 15:31 | Re: Salida |
|
10-4.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/7/2005 15:33 | Re: Professor Saiko's defense |
| Thanks! I figured you'd agree with my assessment of the quality of her argument. -Jim Paine |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/7/2005 15:40 | Re: Jack Ott |
|
One other point on this one: you're overlooking the fact that Richard's
paternity of Joshua is -- indeed, has always been -- in dispute.
Let me mull on the cop for a bit.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/9/2005 10:52 | Brown |
|
Any chance I could get a copy of the academic charges you filed with
Lamar University against Brown?
And thanks again for forwarding my request to your wife for the email
she sent out. She was kind enough to send it to me; I have the
complete text with the accompanying attachments posted on PB.
-Jim Paine
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/14/2005 14:03 | Thanks, and new stuff |
|
Thanks again for forwarding my request to your wife for an
"original" copy of the Update email she sent out.
On another subject: It appears you used your CU office (way back in 1986) as the CO-AIM office (my article on it is here). Any comments? Did you use your CU office to conduct CO-AIM business? -Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/14/2005 18:32 | Re: Thanks, and new stuff |
|
Yawn.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/14/2005 19:24 | Re: Thanks, and new stuff |
| LOL.
Guess I deserved that. |
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/16/2005 14:28 | DiStefano |
|
What do you think of DiStefano's addition of the RMN's allegations to
the SCRM review?
-Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/16/2005 17:54 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Look up "trial by news media" under the heading
"Trials" in Black's Law
Dictionary, and you'll see where this is headed. I mean, really. Wanting
to "get" me is one thing, sheer stupidity is another. And it
won't take me 50
pages to rebut this tinker-toy nonsense.
I tend to prefer worthier opponents.
Don't you?
Now, for something a tad more interesting, assuming you're inclined to
focus
on something besides -- or in addition to -- yours truly, for a bit.
Concerns
my pals, Nightmare Campbell and Suzie Harjo, and the nature of
their "pedigrees."
What say you, oh seeker of truth?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/16/2005 18:43 | Re: DiStefano |
| Mind
if I quote you on DiStefano? As far as Campbell and Harjo are concerned, while I imagine their pedigrees might contain interesting and perhaps even embarrassing revelations, I have to decline for the moment; I was surprised and a bit dismayed at the amount of time I and others spent looking into your genealogy, and I don't see where I could find that kind of time to pursue two genealogies. Besides, I have no dog in that hunt. Your Indian blood or lack of it has always been a side issue for me, anyway; it was only important in its connection to CU's ill-conceived and foolishly administered hiring practices. I believe you called it "shooting from the hip"? -Jim |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/17/2005 6:45 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Hmmmm...
What is it you want to quote? My reference to "stupidity," my
preference
for "worthier opponents," the new allegations being of the
"tinker toy"
variety, or all three?
Whatever. If I said it, you can quote it, unless I specifically declare
something to be off-record. Fair enough?
As concerns time expenditures vis-a-vis Campbell and Harjo, yeah, I can
appreciate the problem. These are rather easier cases than my own,
however,
and you won't end up making their case for them, as y'all in substantial
part
did for me.
E.g., how did Campbell end up being "3/8 blood quantum," as
was stated in the
RMN last week, when 5 years ago his office staff was stating that he
"didn't
know" his quantum? Bit of a problem, wouldn't you say, since
he was already
enrolled at North Cheyenne, which requires verification of a minimum 1/4
quantum for enrollment? The more so, since it says in Viola's authorized
biography that he traces his "Cheyenne" lineage to a baby girl
who may -- or
may not -- have survived Sand Creek?
No deep searching required here, Jim.
On Harjo, either.
Bottom line: Aren't you casting your net a little narrowly here? And
aren't
you a little concerned -- in terms of integrity -- about the credibility
of
some of the sources you're relying on (don't even get me started on the
Bellecourts)?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/17/2005 7:36 | Re: DiStefano |
| Thanks
for the quote. On Campbell and Harjo, really, I'm not disputing what you say, since I know virtually nothing about their "pedigrees." You may very well have something; I'd even consider hosting a website wherein said pedigrees could be vetted I'd start out with a list you provided. But PB is very specific in its purpose, and getting distracted from that purpose, while entertaining, would be counter-productive. Even should you "leave CU to seek other opportunities" PB will continue to look closely only at other state-supported academics"...Jihad Jane" comes to mind. btw: if you can name a rightwing example of state-paid academia showing his/her ass (as "Jihad Jane" is doing), I'd be happy to add that academic to my list, and to start looking at them now. -Jim |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/17/2005 10:23 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Okay. I get the drift. And I might even sign on to some extent.
At the moment, you've left me feeling really uninformed, however. Who
the hell
is "Jihad Jane"???
Meanwhile, here's a news flash you can feed into your collective
calculator: I
was actually considering retirement before y'all commenced your own
"jihad"
(yeah, to avail myself of "other opportunities," none of which
I really have
to "seek"). But there's no way I'd even think about leaving
under pressure,
especially the kind of horsepoop that's at issue now.
If you actually wanted me to leave, you've played it exactly backwards.
The
best way to keep me in place in Boulder is to do what you're -- or, more
accurately, the News, Clear Channel, Bill Owens, the BoR and DeiStefano
are --
doing.
That's what I meant about "stupidity."
I've sort of set you/PB to the side on that, partly because I've sensed
you
had bigger fish to fry -- hence, my fishing on Campbell and Harjo -- and
that
it probably served your purpose for me to be in the picture (just wasn't
sure
how). Now I get it.
Thanks for clarifying.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/17/2005 10:43 | Re: DiStefano |
| here's
PB's link from April 27 to a story on her: OT: Tenured professor 'Jihad Jane' getting some unwelcome attention and our link to another story on her April 4: Mike Adams at Frontpagemag takes a look at North Carolina's own troublesome professor: "Jihad Jane" Quite frankly, she makes you look like a Rotarian. -Jim |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/17/2005 16:45 | Re: DiStefano |
|
A Rotarian, eh? I'm gonna have to try harder.
Thanks for the links.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/17/2005 16:51 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Is this for real? Or just the usual Frontpagemag spew (they did a piece
on me
a while back that had the most basic facts wrong)?
In any event, no contest. I'll stick with the Rotarians on this round.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/17/2005 17:05 | Re: DiStefano |
| If
you haven't already visited her website, here's a link: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Jchristensen/ Top of the page is a photo purporting to be her among her cohorts. Can't tell if it is her, though, since they're all wearing ski masks (and totin' guns; it's what all well-dressed college professors are wearing this year. Ahem.). She is a parody of a caricature of joke. I'm looking forward to eating her lunch. -Jim |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/17/2005 21:00 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Holy moly, Batman.
Holocaust denial? Since when was that a leftie pastime? Sounds more like
a
rewrapped nazi to me, but, hey, that's just my opinion. I could be
wrong.
(And, yeah, I just plagiarized Dennis Miller (so sue me)).
Think I'll stick with my own crowd, thanks.
Shifting gears, though: You suddenly develop some sort of aversion to
guns?
And there I was, thinking you might just be some sort of libertarian.
Silly me.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/17/2005 21:10 | Re: DiStefano |
| Aversion
to guns? Ha. Love of guns and smoking (though not necessarily
simultaneously) are (so far) the only two things you and I agree on. If I'd been able to catch you in Salida, I planned to offer you a cigar. Me, I smoke 3-4 a day. They beat the hell out of coughing up a lung every morning from cigarettes, which I used to do. You should think about switching. Clear your lungs, and change your image from chain-smoking lunatic to cigar-smoking power-broker. Look what it's done for Fidel. Hollywood blows him regularly. |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/18/2005 6:28 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Methinks it likely that we agree on a few other things as well (you just
don't
know it yet). As to those we don't, well...
You seem like a bright enough guy, despite your occasional efforts to
incarnate some weird combination of Leonid Breznev and Bomber Harris, so
I
figure you can still catch up.
With regard to cigars, yeah, I like them just fine. Were we free enough
that I
could smoke Cubans at the rate they're enjoyed by Castro, I might
actually
make the switch.
Or not: I'd probably be cast more along the lines of Al Capone than
Fidel (in
PB, perhaps?).
Besides, my "image as a chain-smoking lunatic" has served me
pretty well thus
far. Wanna play Kissinger to my Nixon? Or would it be better to just
stick to
the standard Bogart routine?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/18/2005 9:07 | Re: DiStefano |
| Is
it a fundamental contempt for the type of person who responds favorably to
your words that makes you so casual in your treatment of historical facts?
Naturally, I favor the contempt explanation, since I feel that same
contempt. Your pattern of misdirections, fabrications, and outright lies is too broad and obvious and endemic for me to mistake it for sloppiness or self-delusion. I think everyone has made that mistake--I know I did, initially. But after reading much of what you've written, and after listening to your pep-talks to the pitiful idiots who attend your speeches and hang on every other word, I'm convinced there is some other agenda at work. I have my theories, but none of them fully satisfy the facts I know to-date; perhaps I'll learn either new facts, or new theories, and the pieces will all fall into place. An aside: You really are a honeypot for the denizens of the fringe. Watching Emma Perez defend you is similar in effect to listening to a streetwalker defend Heidi Fleiss. "Queer Ethnic Studies" indeed. I'm not a big enough fan of realpolitick to relate to Kissinger; I favor using whatever force is necessary to advance national interest (there's something else upon which I believe we agree). Roosevelt (the first one, not his Babbitt cousin) had the right idea; the only way to deal with the world is to have a bigger stick. As with the only appropriate response to rudeness--more rudeness--violence in answer to violence is invariably the most expedient and productive response. In any case, I prefer the image of a Javert to a Kissinger. A conceit, perhaps, but it suits me. Conceits aside, I'll continue to play my chosen role in this game--and game I am convinced it is. I initially believed that your professional future was at stake, that this was serious and grave and deserving of cautious deliberation. I think both of us know that your future financial security is assured regardless of the outcome; oh, you'll remain odious to those opposed to you, but you'll also remain irresistible (an "attractive nuisance" I think the lawyers call it) to the chickenhats, the Perezes, and the Mayers--and you'll never miss a meal. BTW: If Cuba were free enough to encourage an end to the US embargo, I'd smoke cuban cigars, too. Until then, dominicans are a suitable substitute. Also BTW: You make the same (willful, I believe) misinterpretation of my Capone analogy as "Kern" (ahem) made. I very obviously meant to show with the analogy that catching someone "stealing office supplies" might not be as glamorous as a "Top o'the world, Ma!" climax, but it results in the same denouement. At least in my movie. One other thing: I think The RMN's hammering of possible "factual errors" in your intro to Leah Kelly's posthumously published book is beneath them, and vastly inappropriate. Perhaps there are factual errors, but your intro does not pretend to be a scholarly work--and the RMN should have considered it off-limits. (Yes, I know, I've provided links on PB to the RMN articles about it. I consider the RMN's coverage of the story to be news. That may be too subtle a distinction, but it's enough to unburden my conscience .) -Jim Paine |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/19/2005 7:21 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Hmmm...
Do I detect ire?
Stand down, swabbie. It's never going to fit the sort of simplistic
script you
keep trying to impose. And the Breznev line was supposed to provoke
inquiry,
not wrath.
In any event, assuming you're mean Fort Clark and the Allotment Act
stuff when
you refer to "fabrications," you need to be aware that I'm
actually correct on
both and am currently working up essays demonstrating that.
I'll leave "misdirection" as a matter of perception -- you
want specific
results, which I don't believe obtain, based on specific information,
which
I'm either unprepared to provide at this juncture (or which doesn't
exist) and
yes, I've been playing a game with you as a result (thought it was both
mutual, and mutually enjoyable) -- but you'll need to provide me an
example of
what you're terming an "outright lie."
We can either engage in banter, or not. Your call.
As to the RMN and the slime about Leah, I do appreciate your statement.
It
seems to me that you err in only respect in your assessment: Nothing
is "beneath" them. The only constraints they observe,
collectively, devolve
upon their desire to foster the illusion that they're something they
aren't.
I had the impression that you were/are different in that regard. Hence,
my
will willingness to engage you, at least to some extent (something
denied the
Denver press corps at this point, pretty much across the board).
Final tip for the day, pal: Don't be confusing apples and oranges on a
regular
basis. Fair enough?
PS: Hondurans ain't bad, but no replacement for Habanas, and you know
it.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/19/2005 7:25 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Oops. Rereading your second paragraph, I think I may have initially
misread
your missive to some extent (as occasionally happens when I'm still on
my
first cup of coffee).
Okay. Think Abbie Hoffman.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/19/2005 8:35 | Re: DiStefano |
| Ire?
not at all. I should have made a prefatory statement so you'd not
interpret my first 'graph that way, which I see now could be seen as curt
annoyance. The Breznev reference I attributed to prankish obfuscation and so ignored it. The Kissinger/Nixon reference was more interesting. Speaking of references, I'm missing your point. Abbie Hoffman used clever, outrageous stunts to draw attention to his cause (whether he was right or wrong is of course debatable). If you have done similar "stunts" I'm afraid I'm missing the joke. While I doubt Hoffman had better material to work with during his protests, I see nothing in the chickenhats to indicate they'd be capable of understanding, let alone committing, a Hoffman-like event. As useful idiots, they're somewhat useless. In any case, I don't see the comparison. Perhaps I'm being precipitous; maybe you just haven't delivered the punchline yet. "Outright lies..." The "500,000 dead Iraqi kids" comes to mind, although you may be innocent of actually lying, but only of accepting bad data as true. Your representation of the Dawes Act as establishing a "blood quantum" is a more clear example. Mo-Nah-Se-Tah's teeth, again, is--if not an outright lie--then at least a disingenuous mischaracterization that you knew would resonate with your audience. Your contradictory statements about what you did in Vietnam. Since I don't know what you did there, I have to look at the evidence I do have, and that evidence says you couldn't have been all those things--one of them must be a lie--but which one? I will admit that you've not been foolish enough to oblige your detractors with an obvious "smoking gun." You have, on the other hand and over the years, left a trail of contradictory statements that, when taken as a whole, argue against the occasional lapse in scholarship but rather point to a concerted, conscious effort to mislead. Perhaps I've made a mistake in theorizing that you might have some unrevealed purpose for what you've been doing all these years. Could it be that you are exactly what one sees, and nothing more? OT: I've heard that your father was also a teacher or professor. I haven't seen this in any news reports--is it true? If so, what did he teach? |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/19/2005 17:31 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Hmmmm...
You'll have to do better. 565,000 needless child deaths in Iraq by 1996
was as
I recall, UN data, acknowledged as being "worth the price" by
Madeline
Albright on 60 Minutes. That's a matter of record on both counts.
You are, of course, free to dispute the accuracy of the data, but to
call it
a "lie" on my part would be saying a lot more about your
veracity than mine.
Same with the Allotment Act stuff. There's a reason why no native
scholar --
indeed, no legal scholar other than Carole Goldberg -- has sided with
LaVelle
on that steaming pile of crap (or hadn't you noticed?).
Maybe you'd better go back and take another run though LaVelle's piece,
Jim;
particularly the part where he forecloses upon anyone interpreting the
Act via
subsequent legislation or judicial opinion, even as he himself
interprets it
via subsequent legislation (assuming the CFR can be properly described
as
such).
Goldberg is even worse, citing late 20th century Supreme Court doctrine
as if
it illuminated late 19th century policy. Naughty-naughty.
I'll 'fess up to gladhanding the annotation on this one, mainly because
I --
along with a lot of other folks, apparently -- stole a chop from
Jefferson by
considering this particular truth to be "self-evident."
Wrong call. Mea culpa.
But, like I told you earlier, I'm fixin' to bury LaVelle in his own
bullshit.
And, if you genuinely think I won't, you're lying not to me, but to
yourself.
As to Monaseetah's teeth, get a grip. It was the owner of Rickenbacker's,
not
me, who posted the little sign explaining that the teeth were those
of "Custer's squaw." You have someone besides Monaseetah in
mind who'd fit the
description? If so, I'm all ears (or -- ahem -- eyes, as the case may
be).
Or, if you want to call him a liar, have at it. That might even be
accurate.
Meanwhile, check the tapes of my SF talks, or the ones at Claremont and
Monterrey Bay, for that matter. I said straight up that I had no idea
whether
the teeth were actually hers, but that the mere fact that the guy at
Rickenbacker's thought it cool to claim they were -- and that his
clientele
felt comfortable in the environment thus created -- said all that needed
saying about their mentality as far as I'm concerned.
I'll stand by that, and if you have a problem with it, maybe we better
call it
a day, 'cause you ain't who I thought you might be.
Shifting to safer terrain: Breznev was actually in ways the more
interesting
point, but you seem to have missed it. Understandable, given that it, as
well
as the reference to Harris, dated back to comments you made a few
e-mails
earlier. I should've been clearer.
Now, to the Abbie connection. Again, you'll have to do better. Yeah, his
dada
schtick was brilliant and often effective, but you seem to have ignored,
or
been unaware of, the other facets of his political inventory (which were
ascendant, often as not).
On the other hand -- and I'm deeply wounded by this -- you seem to have
completely overlooked such things as my having managed to be the only
person
ever officially declared a "venerated object" by the Denver
Police (Russell
Means was criminally charged with "desecrating" me in 1989;
true story).
Instead of taking things so freaking literally, try reframing them in
terms of
theater. Maybe then you'll see the connection(s) you're missing. But
only if
you wrap your mind around the fact that theater is neither a
"game" nor the
whole show (either for Hoffman or for me).
The relevant questions go to audience and objective, and these bear upon
the
agenda you sense is there, but haven't quite figured out. That's only
because
you keep insisting on viewing things from the wrong angle (not quite
backwards, but almost).
Am I what people see? Good question, the answer to which depends on
who's
looking and, more importantly, what they're looking for.
There. You just got a glimpse of my ass.
That's more than enough.
How are you on muscle cars? Street racer, were you (once upon a time)?
And you never responded to the query on libertarianism.
Later.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 6/20/2005 11:25 | Re: DiStefano |
|
Perhaps you're right; maybe I'm not who you think I might be. I suspect this may mark the end of our (more amusing for you than useful to me) correspondence. If so, I can't imagine what I can glean in understanding from your side of the conversation; I am satisfied that I have revealed as little of myself. In any case, in regard to your last email, I'm ignoring your consistent misinterpretation or misapprehension of my statements. You can stir that shit 'til it wears out the spoon, but it gets your case nowhere. I lost my patience for that sort of Monty Python tail-chasing back in college, and my attitude hasn't improved in the meantime. I couldn't care less about NASCAR or muscle cars; they're so far off my radar I can't even begin to imagine what significance you think they might hold. I'll turn Libertarian when the LP removes its head from its ass on any number of subjects, not a moment sooner. In your mention of Breznev, I hear the whistle of moral equivalency blowing somewhere down around the bend. If you have a different reason for bringing up his name, spell it out. Same for Abbie Hoffman; I can think of nothing drearier than dredging through his various works to find whatever you think might pertain. No, wait, yes I can: Reading Pacifism As Pathology a second time. BTW: I haven't seen the newspaper articles for the 1990 event, but unless you yourself were the "Columbus statue" how does that make you the "venerated object" upon which Russell Means poured the fake blood? And you didn't answer my question: Was your real father a teacher or professor? If so, what did he teach? -Jim |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 6/20/2005 17:38 | Re: DiStefano |
|
10-4 and adios. It's been real.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 7/1/2005 21:51 | Colorado professor spoofs detractors |
|
Having fun?
Results 1 - 10 of about 32 for Colorado-professor-spoofs-detractors. (0.02 seconds) Colorado professor spoofs detractors Charlotte Observer, NC - 42 minutes ago BOULDER, Colo. - In a swipe at his critics, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said Friday he has filed a formal complaint against ... Colorado professor spoofs detractors Duluth News Tribune, MN - 52 minutes ago BOULDER, Colo. - In a swipe at his critics, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said Friday he has filed a formal complaint against ... Colorado professor spoofs detractors San Jose Mercury News, CA - 57 minutes ago BOULDER, Colo. - In a swipe at his critics, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said Friday he has filed a formal complaint against ... Colorado professor spoofs detractors philly.com, PA - 57 minutes ago BOULDER, Colo. - In a swipe at his critics, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill said Friday he has filed a formal complaint against ...
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 7/2/2005 7:26 | Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors |
|
Obviously.
Aren't you?
BTW, if you'd given some thought to my question about muscle cars, you
might've had a better handle on the matter of traction this week. Maybe
you
need to expand your horizons a bit?
Just a thought.
Love,
Abbie
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 7/2/2005 8:12 | Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors |
| Yup.
This has gone from outrage to anger to bemusement to satire to farce to
burlesque--without a single stop at reality. Sorry, that muscle car reference was way too allusive for me; I'm dense that way. If this is all political theater, then It's too much Fellini and not enough special effects for me. Yours, Kern |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 7/3/2005 8:19 | Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors |
|
Ahhhh... "Reality."
Care to fill me in on what, exactly, THAT's supposed to be? I'm sure
you've
got a unique handle on it, given your devotion to special effects and
dedication to the habitation of cyberspace.
Perhaps you were referring to some "virtual" form of
reality?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 7/3/2005 8:32 | Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors |
| Reality.
Interesting choice of subject. In any case, what's with the love affair the Maoist International Movement has with you? Shouldn't they be re-educating enemies of the people and writing more plays for the next Cultural Revolution? |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 7/4/2005 7:19 | Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors |
|
Fascinating, ain't it?
I haven't a clue as to why they've chosen this particular version of the
Long
March but, hey, you've gotta give 'em high marks for persistence.
The more interesting thing, for me at least, is the recent upsurge in
supportive intervention coming from the right (the real right, that is,
not
the canned variety of know-nothing "patriots" whose 1-line
e-mails you guys
keep unleashing on me (maybe that's a little unfair...
"generating" is
probabbly more accurate)).
Seems to be a hub of of right-wingers for Churchill sentiment in New
Mexico;
whether they're in any sense organized, I can't say, but it makes for
some
interesting reading and the occasional good point.
BTW, I'm thinking of having that "Worst Professor in America"
title bestowed
upon me by the Weakly Standard converted into an actual award so that I
can
claim it as vita fodder. Being labled thus by the neo-cons is, after
all,
quite an honor in its way...
Advice?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 7/4/2005 9:06 | Re: Colorado professor spoofs detractors |
| MIM
is truly fascinating, as a case study in self-delusion. But it's hardly
unique in that regard. You've got me on the right-wing support in New Mexico; I can find no instance of it on the internet, which is too bad, since I'd be interested in seeing it and reporting on it. I'd especially like to see a right-wing argument in your favor. I don't think it would make any more sense than the MIM folks, but I've been surprised before. I doubt I get as many as you do, but don't think the one-line-email folks are only targeting you; you'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of wild theories and accusations I get almost daily (from the Right and the Left--neither extreme has exclusivity on emptyheadedness). Unlike you, who can ignore the blather, I have to track down each of these to make sure they don't contain even a germ of truth--which they invariably don't. What people are willing to believe without a shred of evidence is truly amazing. Ah well, enough self-pity. Having long ago considered transferring to San Diego State just to get their "underwater basket-weaving" course on my transcript (I eventually decided to forego the move), I can appreciate the value of "Worst Professor in America" on your CV, though I have to say in an actual competition Jihad Jane would easily win on points. Still, there is a certain cache to being considered the worst professor in America, and not merely one of the worst. I'd be pleased to publish news of the addition. BTW: I see this whole thing turning into a story about CU's egregiously retarded policies (and its continued defense of same) rather than about you. For me, that's a good thing, but for you...? |
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 7/8/2005 7:37 | London bombings |
|
Everybody's already convinced of what you will say about the London
bombings, and are already editorializing on your imagined remarks.
What is your take on the bombings? -Jim
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 7/11/2005 15:59 | Re: London bombings |
|
Frankly, I'm rather enjoying all the editorializing about what the
PirateBallerina demographic imagines I'd have said, had I said anything.
At this point, my very silence apparently speaks volumes in some
circles.
So I think I'll just smile, sit back and smoke a cigar -- a Churchill,
of
course, from Habana -- instead of composing a statement of any sort.
BTW, the flow of e-mail has abated a lot over the last month. So, if you
get a
chance, please tell your guys to step it up a bit.
We're assembling a book composed of about 500 such missives. I've got
roughly
4,000 to work with, which is plenty, but can always use a few more
choice
selections to cap things off.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 8/16/2005 13:58 | class schedule...? |
|
I understand you're only teaching one class, American Holocaust (ETHNO
3100-800) this fall, and that the class is a seminar, with attendance
requiring your approval given to each student after a personal
interview. Also, I've heard that you'll be taking a sabbatical in the
Spring. Is any of this true? If so, which parts? and of any of this is
not true, which parts?
Thanks!
-Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 8/17/2005 9:23 | Re: class schedule...? |
|
No "news" with regard to my fall schedule, I'm afraid,
although I was unaware
that the Regents were unaware of my upcoming sabbatical, which was
approved in
writing at the college level last fall -- late November, as I recall,
although I've not yet bothered to pull the letter from my files -- and
duly
scheduled in the departmental teaching rotation for the past 6 months or
more.
The sabbatical approval itself obviously predates "the
controversy" by at
least 60 days, so there's no connection between one and the other.
Bad day for news on the Churchill front, I guess.
Well, maybe one glimmer: It appears that the Regents are as mystified as
I am
about why they've never received the relevant forms for sign-off (even
Tom
Lucero has indicated -- or so I'm told -- that there's no reason it
wouldn't
have been approved, had it been put before them).
As of last night, Pauline Hale was professing to be unable to clarify
why the
paperwork was not sent up in a timely fashion.
Sooooo...
At the very least, you appear to have been catalyzed the clearing some
sort of
bureaucratic log-jam for me (I've no reason at this point to believe
it's
anything else).
Thanks for the assist.
By way of reciprocation, I will explain the fall stuff to you, if you
want.
But, I promise that you'll be just as bored as I am with the details
(worse,
they will, if anything, put me in a pretty good light).
Your call.
WC
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 8/17/2005 9:30 | Re: class schedule...? |
| Thanks
for getting back to me. Yes, please explain the fall stuff. -Jim Paine |
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 8/17/2005 19:41 | Re: class schedule...? |
|
Okey-dokey.
I taught 300% overloads the entire time I was chair -- a chair is
contracted
to teach 1 course per semester; I taught 3 per -- with the result that I
have
8 "banked."
I'm simply withdrawing one this fall (another way of looking at it is
that
I've already taught the 2nd course I'd ordinarily teach).
Told you it would be boring.
Unless, of course, you want to get into all the revenue I generated over
the
past 3 years by teaching large course sections for which I've yet to be
compensated in any way at all.
Funny thing: I never got so much as a thank you from the guv or
"the
taxpayers" on that one, although it seems to me to have been a
fairly
significant fiscal contribution.
Other possible questions:
Why is my course for fall capped at such a low number? Because it's a
seminar.
They're small by definition. Actually, my cap is high; the average is
more
like 15 and I'm admitting 20 (assuming there are enough qualified
applicants).
Why the controlled admission? Again, standard stuff. The
"interview" is so I
can assess whether they're qualified, i.e., whether their already
sufficiently
grounded in the subject matter to engage in advanced discussion/analysis
of it
(that's the purpose of upper division seminars, after all).
That do it?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 8/18/2005 12:19 | Re: class schedule...? |
|
One of PB's readers has raised some questions about your explanation
of the capped seminar....
He says:
"A couple of points regarding Ward Churchill’s explanation
regarding his “interviewing” of students. All course sections have
a “cap”. The “cap” refers to the capacity of the section, the
maximum number of students who can take a particular section of a
given course. The cap has no relation to whether a student is
“qualified” or not to take the course. The “Cap” number is the
reason students at nearly every college and university scramble to
register for their classes on the first day of registration every
semester so they do not find a course they need for graduation or a
popular elective closed to them. Secondly, the course Ward Churchill
is teaching is a “Seminar” course not a RESEARCH SEMINAR nor a
SELECTED READINGS course. Any requirements for such a junior-level
seminar are pre-requisites courses and can be checked administratively
without an “interview” by the section instructor. There is
absolutely NO reason for Ward Churchill to be interviewing students in
order for them to take this course. Professors are not allowed to add
their own requirements for taking a course. Pre-requisites must be
listed in the course catalog."
Any comments? Is he incorrect?
BTW: Thanks for getting back to me earlier. Anytime I can scoop the
Post I'm happy (even if the "scoop" was merely a product of
the Post's press schedule).
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 8/18/2005 16:05 | Re: class schedule...? |
|
Your reader's simply wrong, Jim.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 8/18/2005 16:24 | Re: class schedule...? |
|
BTW, both you and the Post scooped the RMN, which pleases me no end. So
now
we're both happy, eh?
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 8/19/2005 14:34 | sabbatical on hold? |
|
What's with this?
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 8/22/2005 10:11 | Re: sabbatical on hold? |
|
Beats me. I really did think it had been approved all the way up the
line,
since I'd never heard a word to the contrary (which ain't all that
unusual,
unless there's a glitch).
Facts are these: I was notified in writing that I'd been approved at the
college level back in October 2004 (my recall was November), and have
never
heard another word -- not one -- since. This, despite the fact that
course
scheduling, etc., for spring 2006, proceeded in a normal fashion at the
departmental level, and I reminded the dean of that fact in June.
As I told you, my first inclination was to view what was going on as
just the
usual bureaucratic SNAFU.
It's become plain over the past few days that there's more to it than
that,
however. Sooooo...
At the very least, Susan Avery, Phil DiStefano and a few others now owe
everybody -- not just me, but "the taxpayers" (who, after all,
are ultimately
liable) -- how it is that they somehow "forgot" to notify me
or anybody else
(apparently) that they were "delaying" anything.
The best you can say, is that it is an example of utterly irresponsible
internal management.
As for the worst...
I'm gonna hold that for a bit, given the distinct possibility that
there'll be
federal court action on this one -- actually a couple of matters --
unless
they want to change their position rather rickety-tick.
Either way, you've got a field to run in. Have fun (and be assurred
that, in
terms of having anything concrete from me to report, you just scooped
the RMN
once again).
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 8/23/2005 8:44 | the news.... |
|
Excellent spin on the inquiry subcommittee story. If this was Lane's
doing, you're not paying him enough.
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 8/23/2005 9:25 | Re: the news.... |
|
The best things in life are free, buddy.
|
||
| jwpaine@thorby.com | 8/25/2005 12:20 | Re: the news.... |
|
Any chance I could get a copy of the inquiry subcommittee's letter to
you, along with your comments re: same? I would not, of course,
publish, share, or release any part of the letter without your
approval (or SRCM's public release of the letter).
I have to say that the dropping of the "ethnic fraud"
allegations were a win-win for you and CU, since CU would have been
hard-pressed to prove you knew you had no Indian blood, and your
detractors are now deprived of one of the most emotionally-charged, if
not the most career-threatening, accusations.
BTW: How's your seminar shaping up, student-body wise?
-Jim Paine
|
||
| Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu | 8/25/2005 14:54 | Re: the news.... |
|
Can't do the documents.
Can, however, tip you off to the fact that there's an odds-on
possibility that
at least one more allegation will never make it to the investigation
stage. It
shouldn't, since there's no way of sustaining it, but we'll see.
Meanwhile, were you aware that Kevin Flynn, no less, is trying to take
credit
for the ethnic fraud allegation being dropped. Got an e-mail from him to
that
effect -- which I'll be happy to forward -- a couple days ago.
What a giggle.
Actually | ||