Ward Churchill Loses Again

Amazingly, Ward Churchill, he of "Little Eichmanns" fame. is still fighting his dismissal in court. I wonder who has been funding his assault on reason. According to InsideHigherEd:

The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal in which Ward Churchill sought to get back his job as a tenured professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

His lawyer vows to take it to the US Supreme Court.

My older posts if you want background on this turkey here.

Ward Churchill of "little Eichmanns" infamy

If you have the foggiest interest in the Ward Churchill brouhaha, the Rocky Mountain News has started a series apparently intent on showing him to be a fraud from start to finish.

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill fabricated historical facts, published the work of others as his own and repeatedly made false claims about two federal Indian laws, a Rocky Mountain News investigation has found.

That's pretty unequivocal. Not much wiggle room: they must be pretty sure of themselves.

The two-month News investigation... also unearthed fresh genealogical information that casts new doubts on the professor's long-held assertion that he is of American Indian ancestry.

• He accused the U.S. Army of deliberately spreading smallpox among the Mandan Indians of the Upper Missouri River Valley in 1837 — but there's no basis for the assertion in the sources he cited. In fact, in some instances the books he cited — and their authors — directly contradict his assertions.

• He published an essay in 1992 that largely copies the work of a Canadian professor. But the piece is credited to his own research organization, the Institute for Natural Progress. Churchill published that essay — with some minor changes and subtle altering of words — even though the writer, Fay G. Cohen, had withdrawn permission for him to use it....

• He mischaracterized an important federal Indian law in repeated writings in the past two decades, saying that the General Allotment Act of 1887 established a "blood quantum" standard that allowed tribes to admit members only if they had at least "half" native blood. Churchill has accused the government of imposing what he called "a formal eugenics code" as part of a thinly veiled effort to define Indians out of existence. The News found that the law — while a legislative low point in Indian history that resulted in many tribes losing their lands — does not contain any requirements for Indian bloodlines.

In addition, the News found, Churchill similarly mischaracterized a more recent piece of legislation, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990.

• He has repeatedly claimed to have American Indian ancestry, but an extensive examination of genealogical records that traced branches of both sides of Churchill's family to pre-Revolutionary War times turned up no solid evidence of a single Indian ancestor.

In a related article about other scholars' work...excuse me, make that: In a related article about scholars' work which Churchill published without their permission, he apparently added endnotes of his own. Robert T. Coulter, one of the authors, commented upon that to Rocky Mountain News reporter Laura Frank:

He doesn't have the skill or expertise to add (endnotes) to a paper on my own subject.

Churchill has been "...characterizing his scholarly standards as typical..." I hope not.

Responsibilities of Academia

Wretchard at Belmont Club puts it well:

Ironically, the public glare focused upon Ward Churchill's ideas in the aftermath of his "little Eichmanns" essay provided the scholarly scrutiny that the University of Coloardo itself neglected to supply. Did the US government actually specify a 'blood quantum' for Native Americans? Did US troops really distribute smallpox-impregnated blankets to tribes and with what precautions to themselves? Did Professor Churchill really provide the content of books on which his name appears or did he swipe it from some other scholar? Those are questions which have been dissected at length by persons "outside the campus" and even by "Colorado lawmakers". That they were not raised or even contemplated by academic departments at the University of Colorado constitutes a failure of its most basic mission. Universities not in the business of asking these these questions are arguably not institutions of higher learning at all. That neglect, not the discussion which her University went so far out of its way to avoid, "threatens the foundation of liberal higher education".

I'm not wild about all of the readers' comments, tho.

Ward Churchill & the 1st Amendment

If you are interested in l'affaire Churchill, here are some thoughts from Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy -. The latter, BTW is an interesting group blog, mostly by law professors at UCLA and George Mason University.

Professor Churchill seems a mite testy

CBS4 Denver has the story. Video link at bottom of the story.

Taking a swing at a TV reporter does seem impolitic, tho. Especially on camera. Of course, I may have misinterpreted the video.

Click here: CBS4 Denver: 'Original' Churchill Art Piece Creates Controversy

Thus spake Ward Churchill

News is in from an island friend that the University of Hawaii invited our friend and intellectual mentor Ward Churchill to speak.

Well, I'm not surprised that UH invited him.

Have you read his little diatribe about the 9/11 victims? His point that the Pentagon was a legitimate military target is one I happen to agree with, tho using a civilian airliner to attack it is pretty questionable. (Please note that while I agree that the Pentagon was a military target, I also think that we ought to exterminate al Qaeda. Not capture them, not negotiate with them, not render them helpless. Exterminate them.)

Calling the ppl in the World Trade center 'little Eichmanns" was well beyond the pale of reasoned discourse, tho, and only one inflammatory example from his flame. Having read some of his stuff, most especially his 9/11 piece, I think the guy is an idiot far more interested in pissing ppl off than in making any converts to his cause. Sort of like a lot of Libertarians, unfortunately.

I think he doesn''t have enuf respect for his own beliefs to make reasoned arguments for fear that they will be shot down- like the socially inept who deliberately offend others so that their rejection won't be so threatening as it would have been if the person had actually tried to be liked and was then rejected.

Those who think Churchill's so-called First Amendment rights have been curtailed betray their ignorance of the First Amendment if they are referring to either his canceled speaking dates or the criticism he has received: no one is obligated to provide him with a forum, and anyone who criticizes him is exercising their own rights to free speech.

Should the state of Colorado fire him for his views? No- that might well constitute abridging his 1st Amendment rights-, but given the in my opinion appalling quality of his intellect he should never have been hired. Giving him tenure was pathetic. Making him Dept Chairman was also pathetic, but once he was in, only to be expected if he was willing to take on the chores. If the rumors about lying on his resume and plagiarism hold up, he should be fired for those real failings, and chalk it up to the fact that his notoriety brought his transgressions to public attention.

Actually, a more interesting aspect to me of this whole brouhaha is the light it casts on some university departments: the truly awful "scholarship" which passes muster if the viewpoint is correct, and the belief of students that they must keep quiet in front of professorial prejudice. Churchill is just one individual example of what seems to be a long term trend. I'm not sure it is as bad as the conservatives make it out to be, but I saw enuf of it at UWM to be satisfied that lefty-statism in academia is real and that it does impact students in some departments.

Anyway, as I blogged some time back, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Let him rant on. The shame is that the left allows itself to be represented by idiots like Churchill. I used to know lefties I respected, because they were smart enuf and knowledgeable enuf to make me think in order to debate them. The Ward Churchills should be denounced by the left- I think they are psychiatric cases, not intellectuals.

Not that I have strong opinions on this or anything, mind you.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/18/ln/ln34p.html


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/22/op/op02p.html

Back in the good old days...

...Marxists were smart enough to realize that overthrowing mass-murdering fascists was a good thing. Despite his remarkable failings as a national leader and as a human being, even Stalin had that down pat.

Nowadays it's the Marxists who love mass-murdering fascist military dictators. I guess that's because they understand that fascist military dictators are the enemies of America, and under the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle, Marxists have to defend fascists' right to national self-determination. Even when the fascists use plastic shredders.

This has come to mind once again because Ward Churchill, a Marxist prof at University of Colorado is in the news: some students at Hamilton College are objecting to his giving a speech there, apparently in part because he calls the people who were murdered at the World Trade Center such charming things as "little Eichmanns."

Well, I'm in favor of free speech and as someone I won't bother looking up once said, "Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Our friend Ward is intent on opening his mouth at some length, so I say let him. That doesn't mean the students have to like it or even go, though. And I do understand their objection to spending good money to bring him all the way to Clinton New York, but that's part of the expense of college, folks.

The article of Churchill's which seems to be drawing much of the ire (clik above for the link or paste from the bottom) is called: "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." Below are a few quotes. I won't bother with much of the silliness about the jillions we slaughtered in Iraq, apparently for no better reason than Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright grooved on it, or perhaps because their corporate masters did. Anyway:

On mass-murder at the World Trade Center: "If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

On the Gulf War: "It was a performance worthy of the Nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia." Well, at least Churchill seems to dislike Nazis. I'll give him credit for that.

On American anti-war protestors: "nobody went further than waving signs as a means of "challenging" the patently exterminatory pursuit of Pax Americana. So pure of principle were these "dissidents," in fact, that they began literally to supplant the police in protecting corporations..." Uh oh. Corporations. And the protestors are doing their bidding. Things are looking bad.

On evil: "Evil – for those inclined to embrace the banality of such a concept – was perfectly incarnated in that malignant toad known as Madeline Albright, squatting in her studio chair like Jaba the Hutt, blandly spewing the news that she'd imposed a collective death sentence upon the unoffending youth of Iraq." This is by a college professor, mind you. I guess he understands the polemical importance of de-humanizing the opponent in order to make acceptable the assault they deserve, but where are the little wriggling feet protruding from Jaba's mouth?

And, of course, (it hardly need repeating): It's all Amerikkka's fault: "Had it not been for these evils, the counterattacks of September 11 would never have occurred." Yup, Osama the Humanitarian would still be building hospitals.

I'd love this if the writer wasn't a professor responsible for helping educate people: "In sum one can discern a certain optimism – it might even be call (sic)humanitarianism – imbedded in the thinking of those who presided over the very limited actions conducted on September 11." The 9/11 Hijackers: Humanitarians engaged in Tough Love. But only a wee bit. Yep. He means it.

I gotta believe this prof put WAY too many mushrooms on his pizza. He's really flying here: "Since they've (Amerikka's victims.TTB)shown no sign of being unreasonable or vindictive, it may even be anticipated that, after a suitable period of adjustment and reeducation (mainly to allow them to acquire the skills necessary to living within their means), those restored to control over their own destinies by the gallant sacrifices of the combat teams the WTC and Pentagon will eventually (re)admit Americans to the global circle of civilized societies. " Not too clearly written for someone who teaches at the college level, but what the heck, you get the idea. Chopping the heads off reporters and other prisoners...oh, excuse me, lackies of their corporate masters is humanitarian tough love. I forgot.

Bummer, there's a downside, tho: "Unfortunately, noble as they may have been, such humanitarian aspirations were always doomed to remain unfulfilled. For it to have been otherwise, a far higher quality of character and intellect would have to prevail among average Americans than is actually the case. Perhaps the strategists underestimated the impact a couple of generations-worth of media indoctrination can produce in terms of demolishing the capacity of human beings to form coherent thoughts." Damn. Slaughtering the little Eichmanns and sending the survivors to re-education camps won't work: we're too dumb and degenerunt.

But hey, wait a sec: If we are so durn dumb and indoctrinated, how can we possibly be responsible for the evils committed in our names? How can we do other than vote for the Demopublicans? Our corporate masters make us. Ward Churchill doesn't address that issue, but I intend to bring it up at my trial.

It goes on and on.

http://passionbomb.com/words/push_roost.htm

A truncated version appears at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WC091201.html

which notes it is a mirrored version: http://www.marxmail.org/ward_churchill.htm

That site notes: "The Marxism list is a worldwide moderated forum for activists and scholars in the Marxist tradition". Hence I have concluded, possibly without justification, that Ward Churchill is a Marxist. If I am mistaken and it happens to be that he is a laissez faire capitalist of the Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, or Milton Friedman persuasions, my most sincere apologies.

PS: The Rocky Mountain News article by John Ensslin which inspired this rant is at http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html

UPDATE: Guess who is protesting Iraqi democratic elections. "Meanwhile across the road, a small group of protesters from the World Communist Party assembled to demonstrate against the elections." The story is in The Australian, about the voting by Iraqis living there. I'd call them pathetic twits, but judging from the above they are far too angry to qualify as twits. Copy & Paste:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12076779%5E1702,00.html Update II: Ignorance equals Wisdom. Our friend Mr. Churchill is interviewed: "I can give a talk to a university in North America, to students and professors, and they are fundamentally confused about things that are automatically self-evident to people when you go to a village in Latin America, where the average educational attainment is third grade. Now why can these “peasants” automatically grasp concepts that are just beyond the reach altogether of your average university audience in North America?" I don't suppose that it could even conceivably be the case that the people with a third grade education are WRONG? That the earth really does orbit the sun and not vice versa? http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html