More about Churchill at pirateballerina.com
Recasting the Argument
by Jim Paine
While the entire Churchill issue came up because of his
"little Eichmanns" statement, it is incumbent on those opposed to his
continued professorship at CU to realize that if we allow it, academia and the
MSM will work hard to cast this as a "freedom of speech" and/or an
"academic freedom" issue. It is not.
Churchill is no academic. Take a look at his 1980 resume, with which he acquired not only a professorship at CU, but tenure. Long ago I wrote resumes for a living, and I can say from a professional perspective that Churchill's resume wouldn't have gotten a ditch-digger a job, let alone a tenure track professorship. CU wanted him on the payroll, and I suspect that he could have submitted a piece of grocery sack with "I teach gud" on it in green crayon and they still would have hired him. Oh, and he didn't have a doctorate. Oh, and he isn't an Indian. Oh, and his radical-left press-published screeds have been thoroughly debunked by not one but two actual Indian history scholars whose refutations were peer-reviewed. With the exception of those few niggling points, I think we can all agree that Churchill deserved a tenured position.
Churchill is no Indian. His only verifiable claim to that racial designation is an "honorary Indian" membership card he obtained from the United Keetoowah Band (Cherokee) that the band was passing out to pretty much anyone (Bill Clinton has one, as do many other non-Indians). He can't even get his "Indian name" right, saying at one time that it is "Kenis" and at another "Keezjunnahbeh" (which he says means "kind-hearted man"; one can only imagine what "Kenis" means). Most recently, Churchill answers inquiries into his race by simply refusing to discuss it at all. Most damning is the United Keetoowah Band's own refutation of Churchill's claims to membership. At this point, Churchill's best bet is to hope for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to grant the Raelians official Indian tribal status.
These are the two specific points upon which Churchill's firing should be based. He does not meet the (admittedly loose) academic standards of many liberal arts departments (except for, perhaps, Sangamon's), and he does not meet the requirements (far more stringent) of Indian band affiliation.
Do not let academia cast this as a "freedom of speech" issue. Churchill has every right to stand on a street corner and spew whatever venom he wants. He does not have the right to a cushy tenured taxpayer-supported teaching job from which to spew. He is an academic fraud and a race fraud. Academia should be furiously checking his past statements for veracity and scholarship. The MSM should be checking records to verify his race affiliations (and they are, thanks in part to the blogosphere's unwillingness to let this whole thing blow over). Write to the various academics and media associated with the Churchill debacle. Let them know you expect objectivity and zealous pursuit of the truth--if just this once.
But don't expect immediate results from academia. Keep in mind who you are dealing with. as Orwell said: "Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals will believe them."