A Detailed Analysis of the case against Ward Churchill and the University's standards of review

The Claremont Institute/Colorado has published a long and detailed report on the case against Ward Churchill, why there are substantial grounds to fire him completely separate from free speech issues, and why the strucuture of the University of Colorado's review, including the participating personnel, are not "structured so as to warrant public confidence in its findings and recommendations." It's great work by this new (to Colorado) organization and well worth reading for anyone who is interested in the Ward Churchill fiasco and its implications for higher education in general. Read the Whole Article Here
  • Nahuel
    Comment from: Nahuel
    03/11/05 @ 06:33:50 pm

    rossputin, you should read this article: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/chur-f11.shtml It provides a different perspective. Very few people would agree with Ward Churchill's lack of sympathy, but I don't think it's reason enough to destroy his career. Remember stuff like this happened all the time during the McCarthy era.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    03/11/05 @ 11:11:39 pm

    Nahuel, If you had actually read any of the postings about Churchill, you would realize that there are many reasons to fire him but his disgusting essay is not one of them. He has plagiarized words and art, lied about his heritage to get his first job, and violated his contract by advocating violent overthrow of the government. Your friends at the Socialst web site are showing you an absolute red herring by saying that he will be fired for something he wrote...it is not the case.

  • Nahuel
    Comment from: Nahuel
    03/14/05 @ 12:57:53 pm

    Hey Rossputin, I didn't mean to make you upset. I just wanted you to read that article. I know that Ward Churchill could be fired on other reasons. However, like you said, his essay was the catalyst. It is not because of his incompetence as a scholar, but because of this controversy that has led to a re-evaluation of his tenure. The question of his ethnicity existed before his promotion. He himself only claims to be 3/16ths native-american. His work on the american indian struggle has been extensive, which in itself could qualify him in a position in ethnic studies. Also remember that Martin Luther King jr. himself has been accused of plagiarism. I do not know for a fact whether Ward Churchill did or did not plagiarize or whether he intentionally lied about being native american to dig himself into academia. I do know that all these accusations rose out of his disgusting essay. So It serves as a warning to be careful what you write or what you say, or you could be the target, and could have all of your skeletons revealed.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    03/14/05 @ 04:50:44 pm

    Nahuel, I'm not upset...I just think you should understand more than you seem to about issues on which you opine. Researchers, including Native Americans, have researched Churchill's geneaology and found NO evidence of indian heritage. His work on "struggle" is as full of lies, conjecture, and misappropriate of other people's work as everything else he does. He appears to be a self-serving compulsive liar and you make yourself look bad by reflexively supporting him without reading the tremendous amount of damning FACTS out there about him. I'm fine being the target of people who disagree with me as long as they don't lie and just make stuff up in the debates. I have no skeletons which I'd be afraid of coming out.