Ward Churchill fired

June 26, 2006 10:10 PM

"After conducting the due diligence I felt was necessary, I have come to a decision regarding the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct pertaining to Professor Ward Churchill. Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado, Boulder." -- Chancellor Phil DiStefano
posted by Steven C. Den Beste (51 comments total)

(I considered the following title for this post: "Big Chief Whitebread loses his scalp" but decided it wouldn't be couth.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:12 PM on June 26, 2006

Newsfilter isn't supercouth, neether.
posted by namespan at 10:15 PM on June 26, 2006

This is the crackpot poet dude that got every right wing blog aflutter back in 2002, right?

Some links to the backstory would have helped me get back up to speed.
posted by mathowie at 10:17 PM on June 26, 2006

Who is Ward Churchill?
posted by thirteenkiller at 10:18 PM on June 26, 2006

Okay, so who is this guy and what did he do that got him fired for research misconduct? From Wikipedia:

Ward LeRoy Churchill (born October 2, 1947) is an American writer, political activist, and academic. He is a tenured full professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and author of over 20 books and hundreds of essays. In addition to his academic writing, Churchill has written for several general readership magazines of political opinion. His work is primarily about the U.S. and its historical treatment of political dissenters in general and of American Indian peoples in particular.

Churchill was widely discussed and criticized in the mass media in 2005, for a 2001 essay in which Churchill questioned the innocence of many of the people killed in the World Trade Center attacks, labeling them as "technocrats" and "little Eichmanns."[1] The University of Colorado stated support for Churchill's right to engage in controversial political speech.

Following an investigation, the University's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct recommended Churchill be sanctioned for repeated acts of "serious research misconduct",[2] and on June 13, 2006, recommended his firing[3] Some observers concerned with academic freedom argue that the investigation is in retaliation to Churchill's critical statements about the World Trade Center attacks.

...Allegations against Churchill have become the subject of debate in the media and on Internet weblogs. These included disputes over his claim of American Indian heritage, and allegations of academic fraud and plagiarism. University of Colorado at Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into the allegations of research misconduct, which include plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification.

The University released its investigative committee findings on May 16, 2006. The committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct," including four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.” In addition, the committee found him "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions."

The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct disagreed on what sanctions should be imposed on Churchill. Six members voted for dismissal. Two members voted for a five year suspension without pay, and one voted for a two year suspension without pay. Churchill's actual punishment will be determined by the University Chancellor.

posted by darkstar at 10:24 PM on June 26, 2006

I can only assume that is post is about something completely inane and uninteresting, and is somehow related to a chip SDB continues to carry heartily on his shoulder. What mathowie said.
posted by Jimbob at 10:24 PM on June 26, 2006

Oh, an academic gets fired for plaguarism and misconduct, backed by wingnut blogger conspiracy theories. Awesome Metafilter post material.
posted by Jimbob at 10:27 PM on June 26, 2006

mathowie writes "This is the crackpot poet dude that got every right wing blog aflutter back in 2002, right? "

They still bring the dip up every chance they get. Never mind that the guy was condemned by liberals (or that he was a nobody until the right wingers latched onto him as a liberal boogie man).
posted by brundlefly at 10:31 PM on June 26, 2006

Ah, so this was a different academic that raised their ire. Reading what he said about 9/11 he sounds like a douchebag, so good riddance.
posted by mathowie at 10:34 PM on June 26, 2006

.
posted by Jimbob at 10:37 PM on June 26, 2006

Some links to the backstory would have helped me get back up to speed.

But some links to the backstory would have compromised the purity of this ax-grinding newsfilter post. That's why others had to pick up the slack.
posted by soyjoy at 10:39 PM on June 26, 2006

This is a really lame post. Badly composed. Scanning some of the other material in this thread I'mstill not clear on why I should care or even if I should take the time to see why I should care...
posted by vacapinta at 10:42 PM on June 26, 2006

They still bring the dip up every chance they get. Never mind that the guy was condemned by liberals (or that he was a nobody until the right wingers latched onto him as a liberal boogie man).

Pretty much. It's a strange fixation -- a guy I know STILL rants about 'the latest garbage that Sheehan lady is spewing.' I wouldn't even know she was still around if he weren't yelling about how she represents all that's wrong with TEH LIBRULS.
posted by verb at 10:42 PM on June 26, 2006

The guy isn't a model professor but it was because of the right-wing blogosphere interest that he got outed. Like in the rathergate controversy, the "old-time" blogstorm that descended on Churchill examined everything he said looking for falsehoods or things to nail him with. They did get a scalp -- which was what they were looking for. The guy just never mattered in the first place except, as rightly mentioned above, the mischaracterization of him as representative of the left.

Strange stuff.
posted by bhouston at 10:43 PM on June 26, 2006

From the article:

* The content and rhetoric of Professor Churchill’s essay on 9/11 and other works that we examined were protected by the First Amendment.

So basically he turned out to be a plagiarist. Well congratulations on seeing someone who's politics you didn't like suffer. I'm not defending plagiarism, but seriously the way you people (conservatives) flipped about this guy was rather unbecoming.
posted by Paris Hilton at 10:44 PM on June 26, 2006

I think this episode represents a shocking violation of principles of intellectual freedom.

Notice, in the Chancellor's statement, that he gave the Committee two objectives:

My Committee sought to answer two primary questions raised in various allegations. First, did certain statements by Professor Churchill exceed the boundaries of protected speech? Second, was there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in other conduct that warranted further action by the University—such as research misconduct, teaching misconduct, or fraudulent misrepresentation in performing his duties?

Having read the Chancellor's statement (linked in this post) and followed this story elsewhere, it seems clear that, because Churchill wrote an essay that deeply offended a vast number of people, the University launched a comprehensive probe of Churchill's activities. That strikes me as an unquestionable violation of his intellectual freedom. If the answer to the first "primary question" is that, no, his statements did not exceed the boundaries of protected speech, then that should be the end of the inquiry. Case closed.

But the chancellor's adding of the second "primary question" seems to evince, quite clearly, a desire to nail the guy on something because of the unpopular opinions he expressed. Directing such a probe at him effectively holds him to a higher standard of accountability than other faculty members, solely because he holds unpopular opinions --- and thus the probe is a manifest violation of his intellectual freedom.
posted by jayder at 10:44 PM on June 26, 2006

Here's the investigative committee's report. Sorry, they're all PDFs. And this isn't a bunch of rampaging pajama-wearing bloggers doing the investigation, but his institutional peers.

And, as a CU grad, I'm more than happy the chancellor told him to not let the door hit 'em where the Great Spirit Good Lord $deity_of_his_choice split 'im. Poor academic who rose on false credentials, then defended his position by playing every race card he could and leveraging his personal popularity among the students.

And as a Cherokee, it pisses me off he'd wave his "honorary membership" around as some sign that he was a real, live Native American. What a distraction.

He'll get a job somewhere else, but it's time CU put the distraction behind them.
posted by dw at 10:45 PM on June 26, 2006

all i've got to say is that if a person's going to poke sticks at the system, it's a good thing if you have a reputation for honesty ... and even better if you aren't dependent on that system for a cushy living ... because if they can find a reason to screw you over, they will

he should have known better ... on a LOT of levels
posted by pyramid termite at 10:46 PM on June 26, 2006

So this post is axe-grinding partisan nonsense, but the inaccurate Rush Limbaugh post a few down falsely asserting he was arrested with comments implying he was availing himself of child prostitutes is hunky-dory?
posted by loquax at 10:56 PM on June 26, 2006

Yep, now you're getting the hang of it.
posted by Jimbob at 10:57 PM on June 26, 2006

Just checking. Now I can go to bed knowing all is as it should be in the world.
posted by loquax at 11:02 PM on June 26, 2006

I'm not implying anything, sir! I'm simply making observations about the thriving child prostitution business in the DR, since the country came up in the discussion.

If I wanted to insinuate anything, I would have pointed out numerous discreet escort services that a Viagra-loaded radio host could have availed himself of within the contiguous United States.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:03 PM on June 26, 2006

Oh Jimbob, you're so cute when you're being a little Eichmann.
posted by dw at 11:04 PM on June 26, 2006

*pinches dw on the cheeks*

Seriously, who the hell is this guy? Who has he ever influenced? No-one's ever lost sleep over him apart from a pack of tired right-wing bloggers looking for the next target for character assassination. And because some bloggers care, an academic dismissal becomes postworthy?

This isn't even in the same league as Rush Limbaugh.
posted by Jimbob at 11:11 PM on June 26, 2006

Churchill questioned the innocence of many of the people killed in the World Trade Center attacks, labeling them as "technocrats" and "little Eichmanns.

That's enough for me. Fry the bastard.
posted by cardoso at 11:15 PM on June 26, 2006

This isn't even in the same league as Rush Limbaugh.

This story isn't in the same league as Rush Limbaugh having a bottle of viagra confiscated from him at the airport without him being arrested and with no charges being pressed? At least something actually happened to Ward Churchill.

Hey, look, nothing wrong with hating a guy because of his politics, just be fair. There's plenty of html to go around for all petty political vendettas.
posted by loquax at 11:17 PM on June 26, 2006

got to tell you loquax, i don't give a damn about either of them
posted by pyramid termite at 11:22 PM on June 26, 2006

I'm bummed that he was investigated solely because of the content of his speech. I doubt "Dr." Mike Adams and the like are investigated to this extent.

But it turns out that Churchill is an asshole and intellectually dishonest. Fuck him.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:22 PM on June 26, 2006

Everytime I get into a political debate with my father, he rants about how I'm one of those "America-hating academics" who get all their information from Ward Churchill and the "liberal bloggers." Conservatives love to grab onto this guy as though he was the chair of the DNC. Note the prominent placement this story is getting on foxnews.com. (Rush is getting smaller billing, although the headline was the rather harsh "Rush busted again" and not something more partisan like "Popular radio host harassed for medical prescriptions)

But, as I've said many times to my dad, "nobody gives a flying fuck about Ward Churchill except conservatives." Nobody could give a good goddamn about his opinions or his art. The only thing I care about with regards to Ward is that he has provided more material for douchebags like David Horowitz to attack higher ed as some sort of bastion of evil commie terrorist sympathizers. So for that, fuck him. And fuck the people who get their panties in a bunch about him.
posted by papakwanz at 11:24 PM on June 26, 2006

Nor do I, pyramid termite, nor do I.
posted by loquax at 11:27 PM on June 26, 2006

That's enough for me. Fry the bastard.

Yes, I'm all for executions based on shitty op-ed pieces.


Or, wait...
No.

Fire him for academic dishonesty, sure.

Disagree with him (vehemently, if you wish) because you disagree with his opinions (I do, with some of them).

But if you really think Ward Churchill is so important that something must be done about what he says, then why don't you go publish an article stating your views.

The answer to bad speech is not censorship (or murder) but more speech.
posted by papakwanz at 11:27 PM on June 26, 2006

Here's Churchill's essay that started the backlash, in which he blames a racist and aggressive U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11/01 attacks on the WTC, rants against soccer moms, and a lot more. He perhaps could have used an editor and a sane, coherent argument.

I also recommend the link that dw posted above, the investigative commission's report, if you enjoy reading incredibly boring reports.

I haven't reviewed the full report, but from the introduction, I gather that they a) acknowledge that Professor Churchill's speech was protected, b) decide to review complaints that were previously ignored as inconsequential because people complained due to the above linked essay, and c) spend a long time justifying combing over his work in painstaking detail and punishing him for things that anybody else would have gotten away with. Their basic message seems to be, "Cheating's probably ok. Just don't piss people off (because you threaten our funding?)."

For more information, please review in detail the Dawes Act and all of Ward Churchill's writings.
posted by dsword at 11:29 PM on June 26, 2006

papakwanz...your father goes on about "liberal bloggers"? Wow. I'm going to have to bow out of this debate. If bloggers are starting to matter so much that people's dads bring them up as bogeymen in arguments, maybe you can ignore all my complaints above. All hail the keyboard jockeys.
posted by Jimbob at 12:03 AM on June 27, 2006

The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards." That distinction properly belongs to the "firm-jawed lads" who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below – including tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians – while themselves incurring all the risk one might expect during a visit to the local video arcade. Still more, the word describes all those "fighting men and women" who sat at computer consoles aboard ships in the Persian Gulf, enjoying air-conditioned comfort while launching cruise missiles into neighborhoods filled with random human beings. Whatever else can be said of them, the men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives.

From the original essay in the link posted by dsword.

Provocative stuff - downright offensive to many - but isn't that what tenure is supposed to protect?
posted by three blind mice at 12:20 AM on June 27, 2006

Hm - I think the point is that he wrote an inflammatory essay, which the University defended, but now they have found flimsy excuses to fire him. Kind of a bitch move.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:28 AM on June 27, 2006

It is the international system of currency which determines the vitality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today. And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature. And you will atone. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little 21-inch screen and howl about America, and democracy. There is no America; there is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:32 AM on June 27, 2006

His best scam was editing books in which he wrote all the articles, all of which agreed with him, but he got other academics to put their names to them (as they needed the credit for tenure.) What a wheeze!
posted by A189Nut at 12:33 AM on June 27, 2006

Except that if you read the report, you'd find that he's a serial plaigarist, and that he repeatedly passed things off as fact in scholarly papers without providing any proof.

Yeah, the charges were politically motivated, but he broke a lot of basic rules profs are expected to follow. Like, oh, not making stuff up. Or citing other people's work.

For more information, please review in detail the Dawes Act

No, don't. It's like telling someone to read the last chapter of a book because that's the entirety of the book.

You want to read about the Dawes Act? You want the magnificent And Still The Waters Run. Angie Debo would kick the crap out of Churchill if she were alive today.
posted by dw at 12:42 AM on June 27, 2006

As a current CU student, I hear about this shit all the time. I still don't know what to think. I find the attack on him disheartening, especially David Horowitz's rhetoric about 'dangerous professors'. But Ward is still a shill, with or without Republican bitching. Some students have stood up for him, but I think they're more concerned with academic freedom than Ward's tenure.

As far as the essay goes, I agree with the man to some degree, but his choice of language befuddles me (and angers others). I'm happy to see him go. Another CU scandal swept under the rug-- maybe my degree will be worth something now! :)
posted by jsteffa at 12:48 AM on June 27, 2006

So the academic tenure system weeds out hack profs regardless of their politics.

Shame American democracy doesn't do the same thing to liars unless they're Democrats.
posted by bardic at 12:52 AM on June 27, 2006

From my husband:

"During the Second World War, at the height of anti-Western and anti-Communist hysteria in Japan, three avowedly marxist economists from Tokyo Imperial University were put on trial for their views. Communism was, in that time and that place, illegal and rigorously suppressed by the state. Academics had been attacked by the government before and intimidated university heads twisted this way and that, sacrificing their faculty to preserve the threatened autonomy of the university.

"But in Tokyo, in 1944, the courts found that while their communism was criminal, their status as academics protected them. While ordinary people had no freedom of speech, while the press had no freedom of speech, academic freedom was to be held sacred.

"It troubles me beyond words that Americans, people brought up to love freedom and respect dissent, would so willingly call for a step that even ultra-nationalist Japan ultimately found itself unwilling to take."
posted by jb at 2:38 AM on June 27, 2006

There seem to be a lot of nasty little home truths in Churchill's essay. Its understandable that many USAians were spitting after that; truth however inflamatorily presented can definitely be unpalatable. Its also understandable that a plagarist and intellectually dishonest professor gets censored / punished.
Agrees with three blind mice.
posted by adamvasco at 3:54 AM on June 27, 2006

jb: Tell your husband not to worry. Ward Churchill isn't going to jail.

Did those Japanese Economists keep their jobs? Hiromi Arisawa didn't. He was Projessor of Economics at Tokyo Imperial University in 1938, until he was forced to resign for his anti-war views.
posted by techgnollogic at 4:22 AM on June 27, 2006

denbeste of the web
posted by quonsar at 4:30 AM on June 27, 2006

This will only embolden Horowitz, be warned...
posted by Unregistered User at 4:34 AM on June 27, 2006

Mr. Churchill lived in a glass house, and threw stones. Mr. Churchill's fate should surprise no one, least of all Mr. Churchill.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 4:58 AM on June 27, 2006

Now that Ward and Steven are both retired, they should totally take this debate on the road. Remember the old G. Gordon Liddy/Timothy Leary show? They could be just like them: a little flag-waving, a few screeds, some piano. Who wouldn't pay to see that?
posted by octobersurprise at 5:42 AM on June 27, 2006

Obscure professor that had nothing to do with anybody got fired for reasons unrelated to why right-wingers hated him. Top this with Rather leaving CBS and the flag-burning amendment vote today and right-wingers are on a very good track this week of solving all those pesky non-existent problems in the world.

I think you're a bit confused about what the right-wingers are trying to accomplish. I doubt any of them could give a flying fuck about the rest of the world. Their primary goal is to silence the opposition in America. With the silencing of this professor and Rather they've hit academia and the journalists and, yeah, I'd say they're quite successful. Most people understand that in witchunts the question of innocence or guilt is completely beside the point. Even if this guy had been cleared of all charges, it would've been seen as a success that would only serve to reinforce the higher principle. But, yeah, most people don't care so whatever.
posted by nixerman at 5:57 AM on June 27, 2006

People (e.g. jayder but others as well), let's be careful not to conflate two concerns: whether he should have been fired for reasons of academic malfeasance, irrespective of his political views, and whether he would've been fired were it not for a hue and cry from right-wing reactionaries.

* N.B. I've not read Churchill's scholarship, only his stupid 9/11 essay.

Obviously there's a political cast to his firing, which is unfortunate, and therein lies the real significance of the story (yet another salvo in a war against a certain kind of American intellectual by so-called conservatives).

But taking the claims of the committee at face value, isn't the school better off without him? Plagiarism and misrepresentation are cardinal sins among scholars; if you're defending Churchill with nothing more than 'They wouldn't have found out about his transgressions and allegedly shoddy scholarship if he hadn't mouthed off about 9/11' you're damning him with faint 'praise,' I'd say.

The right-wing bloggers didn't fire him, his colleagues in academia did. Departmental politics are fun and whatnot but let's leave it to the dons and deans.
posted by waxbanks at 6:36 AM on June 27, 2006

Winston's gonna be pissed.
posted by jonmc at 6:50 AM on June 27, 2006

I work in the same field as Churchill, America Indian history.

Churchill is no obscure professor brought into the national spotlight by Limbaugh and Horowitz. He is a big name in the field, though always a controversial one. His most notable scholarship involved the FBI and the American Indian Movement, though he is quite prolific and also had widely read books about treaties and about American Indians in the movies.

The title of the later, Fantasies of the Master Race, gives you a thumbnail of his approach--witty, sarcastic, and loudly proclaiming that he Ward Churchill is writing on behalf of all his fellow Indians, he is the Great Red Hope of the academy. All his work was extremely tendentious that way, claiming Native American authenticity on every page. His best known book is ' ' Indians Are Us? : Culture and Genocide in Native North America. He used his status as an American Indian in academia to good effect, getting a tenured professorship without a PhD. or even a valid M.A. He charged a large speaking fee to bring his Indian perspective to other campuses.

Except as it turns out he is not an Indian at all. He has claimed tribal membership in various nations, usually some branch of the Cherokee, but all have disavowed him. The rumor that he is what real Indians call a member of the "Wannabe" tribe has long circulated. The newspaper Indian Country Today has been on to him for years. There have also been rumors about the quality of his scholarship, with whispers of both plagiarism and the fabrication of data.

It was inevitable that Churchill was going to fall. The rise of the internet makes plagiarism too easy to catch, as well as comparing different newspaper interviews where Churchill claimed various tribal heritages. His 9-11 remarks catalyzed a process that was already occurring, but might have taken years to complete.

The lesson is that if you are going to be a controversial academic/public intellectual, you better make sure your scholarship is bullet proof. Which is pretty good advice for any of us.
posted by LarryC at 7:13 AM on June 27, 2006