Posted on 02/12/2005 7:22:14 AM PST by Snapple
The University of Colorado is....hearing from Indian country [http://www.indiancountry.com] scholars whose previous protests against Churchill's appointment fell on deaf ears. The three-person panel reviewing Churchill's work is receiving studies that accuse him of fabricating evidence for his academic writing and even of plagiarism. At least one member of the UC faculty has also questioned why the University hired and promoted Churchill in the first place...
Charges such as these will be grist for the University of Colorado review mill over the next 30 days. As DiStefano described it at the tumultuous Board of Regents meeting, it would consider two questions: ''1) Does Professor Churchill's conduct, including his speech, provide any grounds for dismissal for cause, as described in the Regents' Laws? And (2) if so, is this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against University action?''
He said the review would provide due process in consultation with University counsel. ''Even as the debate continues,'' he said, ''we must understand the serious nature of actions to terminate or suspend a professor on the basis of conduct that includes political speech.''
In addition to DiStefano, other members of the panel will be Arts and Sciences Dean Todd Gleeson and Law Dean David Getches, an authority on Indian law and a founder of the Native American Rights Fund.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiancountry.com ...
wrote UC Law Professor Paul Campos in a newspaper column, ''Churchill lacks what are normally considered the minimum requirements for a tenure-track job at a research university: he never earned a doctorate, and his only degrees are a bachelor's and a master's from a then-obscure Illinois college.
''To the extent that Churchill was hired because he claimed to be a Native American, he would seem to be guilty of academic fraud.''
Campos cites two articles, now available on the Internet, that document separate instances in which Churchill allegedly invented evidence out of whole cloth to support polemics against U.S. and tribal governments. One, by Thomas Brown, assistant professor of Sociology at Lamar University, charges that Churchill simply made up a story that the U.S. Army deliberately caused a devastating 1837 smallpox epidemic in the upper Plains by distributing infected blankets to the Mandan Tribe.
Although documents exist to show that the English Lord Amherst approved such a strategy - one of the earliest examples of biological warfare - in the mid-18th century, Brown wrote that none of Churchill's citations supported his charge against the U.S. Army and in fact showed the contrary: that the 1837 epidemic was a natural disaster. Yet, said Brown, Churchill not only repeated the story but also embellished in a series of writings.
The article is available at http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm.
University of New Mexico Law Professor John P. LaVelle published an article in the spring 1999 ''Wicazo Sa Review'' tracking Churchill's false assertion that the General Allotment Act of 1887 included blood quantum requirements. LaVelle found that the statement, unsupported by any evidence, appeared in 18 of Churchill's writings. He described it as part of Churchill's ''propaganda-driven attack on tribal self-determination.''
In addition, a lengthy footnote described several apparent instances of plagiarism in the 1992 essay collection, ''The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization and Resistance,'' published in the Race and Resistance Series of South End Press, Boston. (The pattern is somewhat complicated, since LaVelle concluded that Churchill had also provided language for his collaborators in the volume.)
A link to the article appears on LaVelle's University of New Mexico Web site at http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/publications.htm.
Thanks for the post. I think they're gonna get him.
I hope everyone remembers that his horrible words were the words of a white man who exploited Indians for his advancement. His views are NOT the views of Indian people.
This is just one more reason that this clown is a fraud, as if there weren't enough already. It's disgusting that this kind of crap is rampant in today's universities under the guise of education.
Whenever these idiots gets exposed, the university system always rants that all opinions are important and this guy is doing a good thing be exercising his 1st Amendment rights, which the university supports.
Try to get Jerry Falwell, Clarence Thomas, or Wayne LaPierre a speaking spot at a university and see how fast their arguments break down.
We can only hope this happens. Maybe it would send a message to other America hating professors.
Lone Ranger (Churchill) to Tonto: "The Indians have us surrounded."
Tonto: "What do you mean...us?"
That would be great irony to have the Indians defeat a fake Indian.
Lone Ranger (Churchill) to Tonto: "The Indians have us surrounded."
Tonto: "What do you mean...us?"
That would be great irony to have the Indians defeat a fake Indian.
KInda of weaird. Churchill, a fake Indian, is a member of a political party that had a fake black man for President.
Worse, any questions raised about leftwing idiocy were never answered, but attacked--sometimes physically. This atmosphere allowed Stalinist liars like Churchill to become more bold until even their academic fellow travelers could not defend them anymore.
Within 5 years, Churchill will either be in the brig or stoned in a flophouse.
It is dangerous to go after Churchill.
Here is the excellent article by Campos comparing Churchill to a Facist.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341658/posts
Campos writes, "That through whatever combination of negligence, cowardice and complicity we have allowed Ward Churchill to besmear those ideals by invoking them in the defense of his contemptible rantings is now our burden and our shame."
Campos mentions cowardice. People should be afraid of Churchill because he has those Dog Soldiers--AIM's security/enforcement gorillas.
The University is being very brave. They are confronting a real terrorist. Ward churchill is a terrorist. He advocates the destruction of the US and is in AIM which has bombed and killed.
I don't think this guy just talks.
Or hiding out with Lee Hill and planning how to kill Americans of all colors--white, Indian, Black, conservatives, liberals.
He hates us all.
They need to find Lee Hill.
Churchill is not a liberal.
Tonto: "What do you mean...us?"
I think the complete response was "What do you mean, 'us,' White Man?"
Never said he was. I called him a Stalinist.
Churchill is not a Democrat. He is an anarchist. He is more in line with communists or facists.
He is nothing to do with Democrats. Liberal professors are disgusted by him, too. It is just difficult to get him out without violating free speech or a lawsuit.
This man does not accept democracy and elections.
We may be more conservative that the Democrats but they do accept our core values of democracy and elections.
You say, "Churchill is not a liberal."
What is that statement based on? You certainly wouldn't describe him as a conservative? If it walks like a liberal, talks like a liberal and lives off the system like a liberal, it is most likely a liberal.
Then I guess the Feds will be looking at him too.
(if they aren't already)
OK, it seemed that you said he was against conservatives. He would be against real liberals too.
Let's not use Churchill to bash the liberals. They don't own him any more than the Indians do.
We need to make common cause on this fight.
His words are those of a disgusting human being. The sort that can be found among people of all descriptions.
RoK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.