Dwight, far more substantial arguments are presented in the case against the committee than the bias of LaBelle, in both documents Frank provides. Why the May 10 document opens with the LaBelle business, which I agree is weak, is unclear, but the other charges in that document are worthy of consideration, and the May 9 document is far more explicit and convincing in its charges of withholding, supressing, distorting, inflating and fabricating evidence. The bulk of the committee’s report is refuted. It’s questionable whether or not what remains un-refuted constitutes enough dirt to reccomend dismissal, but it seems the committee didn’t think so, and padded their case heavily.

For example, his complaint that the committee took evidence from an individual biased against Churchill is totally irrelevant. The scholar in question, John LaVelle, is biased against Churchill because Churchill fraudulently misrepresented the contents of the Dawes Act. But the misconduct committee did not take LaVelle’s word for that. Instead, they went to the evidence that LaVelle cited to make their determination. Thus LaVelle’s bias is irrelevant. It’s an ad hominem defense that fails to deal with the actual evidence.

Churchill’s claim that the committee refused to hear relevant evidence is unfounded. Even if it were true, Churchill has brought no new evidence forward that would exonerate him.

You folks–Frank Bubo especially–need to read the relevant documents and compare them, carefully. Instead, you are picking sides based on political sentiment, or based on the last thing you read. Either way, it’s a superficial way to resolve the debate.

I like Ward Churchill to the extent that he expresses a side of the story that does not often get told. I almost never like the way he expresses it.
A clue to the integrity of those demanding that he get fired is their relentless switching of reasons to fire him, not unlike the switching of reasons to “fire” Saddam Hussein after the U.S. originally arranged to put him in power in Iraq and propped him up and actually were complicit in his evil deeds for which we later saw fit to arrange his execution through a puppet Iraqi government and puppet legal system.

No, I am not saying Ward Churchill performed evil deeds reminiscent of Saddam Hussein, but I am saying that in both cases, when their presence was deemed no longer tolerable, any justification was used to remove them from positions of authority and power, including rotating targets as justifications.

After reading the discussion about Ward Churchill’s scholarship on the issue of the U.S. Army allegedly giving smallpox-infested blankets to Indians as a form of deliberate genocide, my own take of the situation downgrades Churchill from a first-rate scholar to a third-rate scholar. I find it strange that he would have ghostwritten articles under the name of his wife and/or other living acquaintences. This is not the stuff of a great scholar.

But these foibles should be addressed within the realm of published literature and not by firing him, especially at this late stage of the game.

Clearly, Ward Churchill is a politico posing as an academic, but the University gave him tenure for this very reason. They liked having an academic agitator on staff until the heat got too hot in the kitchen and then they shriveled like cheap bacon.

Ward Churchill is what he is and he is what he was. The University of Colorado knew what he was when they hired him and they knew what he was when they granted him tenure in a move that was quite non-traditional at the time.

So, this handwringing by the university now is a bit like Rumsfeld in his dealings with Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld got away with it and it remains to be seen whether the University of Colorado will. A similar situation exists at DePaul.

If I was a betting man, and I am not, I would not put my money on justice. But I will fight for it just the same.

Frank Bubo

It’s aways wise to obtain as much context as possible. Ad hominem attacks are usually the basis of alleged pretexts (plagery). In other words is the argument about academic scholarship or about what Churchill’s scholarship presents? I suspect the latter.

Here is a link to some of this discussion:

This indicates to me that the issue of plagiarism and academic misconduct on Churchill’s part is unresolved, as is the issue of academic misconduct on the part of the investigating committee of the University of Colorado at Boulder. The counterevidence presented by Churchill’s defenders is strong.

In light of all this, I retract my position that Ward Churchill deserves to be fired. I do not know how this should be resolved in a fair manner, but clearly the investigation of Churchill itself was intrinsically biased and possibly flawed, perhaps fatally.

I think I have a solution — let’s get Professor Finkelstein to review the case and issue a binding opinion. He is honest, thorough, and not afraid to take a stand…

Frank Bubo

Beyond that, since old Fred thinks I just fell off the turnip truck, I’ll let my record speak for itself.

Obviously, the furor resulting from Churchill’s 9/11 comments led to attempts to find cause for firing him. I know from personal experience and observation of other people’s circumstances that upsetting the status quo can result in efforts to destroy one’s career. I once called a law enforcement officer a moron and insulted him and I paid dearly by being put through a lengthy law enforcement “investigation” that led to a prosecution later thrown out by the courts, but which was a definite payback for my insubordinance.

My reading of the University of Colorado report is that Ward Churchill proves to be a fraud as an academic and deserves firing on that basis.
I will never believe products of his “scholarship” again and I do not have time to read all his cited references to determine the accuracy or relevance of his work. But the investigation by his peers at the University of Colorado seems thorough and fair and honest to me. It is not an issue of academic freedom any more, but of academic misconduct.

The chickens have come home to roost for Ward Churchill, I am afraid. The system works that way at times. They convicted that Chicago mobster whose name escapes me right now for tax evasion, not murder. Ward Churchill bucked the system but he will be fired, not for that, but for his academic fraud and misconduct, which is his own fault and not to be blamed on others. There was plenty of fault to find in the treatment of indigenous by the U.S. government and Churchill decided to embellish stories based on his imagination and without evidence.

I doubt Ward Churchill can resume a career in scholarship on Native American issues, but maybe he can switch over to anti-imperialism. But his credibility will be forever questionable in terms of is proved tendency to fabricate, mislead, and torture the truth.

This case illustrates the dangers inherent in activism. But the reality is that the system will always be unfair in one way or another. Finkelstein was innocent of plagiarism and denied tenure without adequate cause. Churchill was originally hired because of activism, but finally fired because of scholarly misconduct, but not related to his primary scholarship. If you rock the boat, they will find a way to toss you off one way or the other. My personal view is that Finkelstein’s case is still worth fighting for. Churchill made his bed and now he has to lie in it.

Frank Bubo

Your last para is also nonsensical. Most of the commenters in this thread, including me, more or less agree with the jist of Churchill’s crude analysis of what you label “American exceptionalism.” For you to thus dismiss the well-reasoned arguments from Michael Dawson et al shows a fundamental lack of reading comprehension on your part.

It is becoming apparent why you are attracted to simple-minded polemicists such as Churchill. You apparently lack the cognitive skills to deal with more subtle arguments.

Am I resorting to ad hominem? You bet. If you want to make an argument from logic and evidence, you can take a crack at it. But I don’t think you have the intellectual chops to pull one off.

Sadly, the whole Churchill spectacle should have been nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. In fact, there would be nothing happening today had it not been for those whose beliefs in the notion of American Exceptionalism were challenged or offended by what Churchill had to say in the wake of 9-11. Allegations of plagiarism were merely the ruse necessary to attempt to silence Churchill.

Precisely my piont. Given the rash of calling out “plagerism” one must begin to be a bit suspect.

I find it a specious argument to be stating that Churchill is hurting the “left”. First, who in the hell reads Churchill and considers him THE spokes person for the Left? David Horowitz?

Second, no one on this thread and other “Churchill” threads has specified exactly what it is that Churchill has said that “crosses” some line.

It is true, that given the treaties and charters the US has signed right through the 1990s, war is all but outlawed, and we have broken just about everyone of those treaties/Federal laws. Morally, there is no justification for killing, including retribution…it is also illegal. But, Al-Qaeda is just a tag, for a diffused and angry world. Some of that anger is suppressed. Some of it is suppressed to the point of compliance with US demands. But some of it, leaks out.

Osama bin Laden was explicit in his reasons for attacking the WTC. He had 3 clear reasons. They were all about what the US had physicially, forcefully, illegally, and immorally done in the Middle East; and that war machine was brought against civilians (and still is). To equate OBL with US superpowerdome and empire hegemony, is laughable, however horrible the results of his “actions”.

Those of you who want to blame Ward Churchill because you think he’s a plagerist, are in complete and utter denial. Ward Churchill isn’t even the issue.

Here is another good analysis of Churchill’s fabrications:

http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf

But Benjamin’s crime is even worse than that. Not only does he dismiss the case against Churchill by means of a hand wave; he then proceeds to indict those who disagree with his non-analysis as lacking scholarly integrity. In other words, he’s a fool, and it’s no wonder he’s stuck out in th Oklahoma boondocks of academia. He’s lucky to have that job, given the limited intellectual capabilities he demonstrates here.

BTW, as a white guy who supports the American Indian Movement in the San Francisco Bay Area, I once attended a Ward Churchill speech in Berkeley and was, in fact, asked by local AIM sponsors of the speech to help guard the stage against interference by other Native Americans who were opposed to the local AIM chapter and to Ward Churchill. No Native Americans that I saw at that event on either side of the issue disputed Ward Churchill’s “indianness”. If Native American activists, such as Russell Means, accept Ward as one of their own, I think that is good enough for me. A fair number of African Americans (and others) question the “blackness” of Barack Obama, despite photos of his father. This shows me that defining someone’s ethnicity by someone else’s standards can be problematic no matter what the truth is, and politics makes for subjective realities to begin with.

Ward Churchill is first and foremost an activist regarding Native American issues. He is belligerant and can be obnoxious, but he does his homework, is generally truthful and has compiled a valuable body of work within his speciality that stands on its own merit, not unlike that of Noam Chomsky, Bill Blum, Norman Finkelstein or others who specialize in particular aspects of social justice. His value is not at all dependent on whether “progressives” approve of him or not, but it does benefit from his position within academia. Firing him would be a travesty in my view and would interfere with academic freedom in a world where pressure against dissent and against academic roots of dissent is growing all the time.

Frank Bubo

The history of war is one of increasing criminality. In fact, war itself is a crime, under the UN Charter. The only legal military action is self-defense against military personnel invading one’s home. Bombing to cripple economies and scare/punish civilians is a war crime.

Ward Churchill is not an Indian, btw, as David rightly points out. This whole damned mess is an absolute disaster for the left and for efforts to shut down this war.

G

Afterall, what is “plagerism” in a world of constant emergence? A world of community discourse? I’m sure the lawyers will tell us. But a polemic is really about taking “ownership” of an opinion. Again, I don’t have the Regents’ complaints to understand whether it is trivial (”tempest in a teapot”) or not.