Posted on 02/11/2005 3:49:28 PM PST by AZ_Cowboy
Churchill met with Gadhafi Controversial prof set to make speech at Wisconsin school
By Charlie Brennan And Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News February 11, 2005
This is not the first time Ward Churchill has disagreed with the U.S. government's idea of who is, and is not, a terrorist.
In April 1983, Churchill went to Libya to meet with Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
The U.S. government had banned travel to Libya two years earlier, saying Gadhafi supported terrorism. Churchill traveled to Tripoli and Benghazi as a representative of the International Indian Treaty Council and the American Indian Movement. He went with Dace Means, brother of AIM leader Russell Means.
They were seeking recognition from Gadhafi of the U.S. government's breaking of Indian treaties.
"The main thing we sought and received was diplomatic support," Churchill told the Associated Press at the time.
He added, "AIM has not requested arms from the Libyan government."
The meeting took place five years before a bomb exploded on an American passenger jet above the small Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing all 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground.
Intelligence sources have long believed Gadhafi ordered the bombing.
In recent years, tensions between Libya and the United States have dissipated. Last year, President Bush signed an executive order lifting the remaining U.S. commercial sanctions against Libya after determining that the African nation has met all the U.S. requirements for eliminating its programs on weapons of mass destruction.
Churchill wasn't available Thursday to talk about the Libya trip or other developments.
The University of Colorado ethnic studies professor received good news from the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, which announced that a scheduled speech next month by Churchill will go forward.
It's the first time since the controversy around Churchill's remarks began that an out-of-state school has allowed him to talk.
Three other colleges have recently canceled talks by Churchill, citing security concerns. CU cancelled a planned speech earlier this week, but reversed the decision at the last moment.
UW-Whitewater Chancellor Jack Miller issued a lengthy explanation, acknowledging his decision would be "repugnant to some," and attached six stipulations.
They include the provision that the university must be sure the safety of the community is not compromised, that no state-funded general purpose revenue will be used to pay Churchill's honorarium, and that no students will be required to attend by their professors.
The topic of Churchill's talk is to be "Racism Against the American Indian." Back in Colorado, questions about Churchill's claim to be an American Indian were raised again Thursday, when documents were released showing the professor claimed to be an American Indian on applications to CU.
Miller, the UW-Whitewater chancellor, also noted that CU is investigating Churchill's academic and scholarly record and that a conclusion to that review prior to March 1 could still affect the status of Churchill's talk.
CU's board of regents has directed Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano to conduct an exhaustive probe of Churchill's works, in the wake of his notorious Sept. 11 essay, "Some People Push Back; On The Justice of Roosting Chickens."
In that piece, Churchill likened the white-collar employees he termed "technocrats" who died in in the World Trade Center to Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann.
"These comments, which some people - including some who lost loved ones, family members, and colleagues on 9/11 - would call 'hate' speech, are obviously deeply hurtful," Miller said. "This is not to negate or criticize the professor's larger argument about violence begetting violence."
Wisconsin Republican lawmaker Steve Nass, upon hearing of Miller's decision Thursday, began circulating a formal resolution to condemn Miller's decision.
"This is hate speech," Nass told The Associated Press.
For his part, Churchill wrote the university that he is "entirely unprepared to undergo a personal interrogation at this late date in order to facilitate your deliberations as to my 'worthiness' to deliver a public lecture on an entirely different topic at Whitewater," Churchill wrote.
Churchill's letter to the chancellor added that should the event be cancelled for "any reason whatsoever," the school will still be obligated to pay his honorarium of about $4,000, plus travel and other expenses.
"Please be further advised," Churchill added, that these monies will be used, at least in part, to underwrite my coming to Whitewater at the earliest opportunity for purposes of meeting at some appropriate location, either off campus or on, with the students who originally desired to hear what I have to say with regard to Indian Affairs."
Brian Mattmiller, a spokesman for UW-Whitewater, said 400 to 600 e-mails have been sent, mostly in opposition to his visit.
While UW-Whitewater was deciding to allow Churchill's talk on racism against American Indians to go forward, Churchill's status as an American Indian was under assault, again, closer to home.
Churchill's original 1978 application to the school for a position as a lecturer in Native American studies included a completed federal affirmative action form, on which he claimed "American Indian" ethnicity, according to records obtained Thursday by KHOW radio talk show host Dan Caplis through open records law requests to CU.
A second document obtained by Caplis, a 1990 application by Churchill for the position of associate professor of American Indian Studies, prior to his receiving tenure, also shows that Churchill claimed "American Indian" status.
An affirmative action data collection form shows that 11 American Indians applied, but only two, including Churchill, were interviewed.
Many questions have been raised, since the Churchill controversy erupted last month, about whether he can properly claim American Indian status.
Churchill, who could not be reached for comment Thursday, was granted associate member status in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in May 1994 - two months before such memberships ceased being issued.
"If he is not Native American, if he lied about his ethnicity to get a job in the Equal Opportunity program, I think they would fire him on those ground alone," Caplis said.
Jerry Rutledge, chairman of the board of regents, said Thursday that he has asked CU legal counsel about the possible ramifications, if Churchill can be shown to have misrepresented his ethnicity in a job application.
While admitting that he had not had his legal questions answered, Rutledge said, "I would think that would be very significant."
Darold Kolmer, one lawyer currently representing Churchill, said "I have no idea if he's Native American."
However, "I don't think it matters," Kolmer added, "and I know that legally, they won't get away with firing him on that issue."
Kolmer said it's clear CU wants to fire Churchill cause of his political views.
To do so now on the basis on his ethnicity claims on applications, Kolmer said, "The burden would be on CU to prove that whenever they find out people are not the the race they claim, they always fire them. And I bet CU can't show a single instance of that in their history."
Denver lawyer Craig Skinner, whose practice includes employment law, was not so sure.
"If it is a material and intentional misrepresentation, then the university would be justified in terminating his employment," said Skinner. "Within the law, ethnicity is not a subjective determination."
He added, "If you can determine that you have a relative that was an Indian at the time of William the Conqueror, that probably doesn't cut it."
The story broke earlier, but this is the first I've seen that he went with Dace Means.
Contrary to the impression given by the recent AIM denial that he is a member, he has worked with AIM for at least 20 years.
More grounds to fire his a**.
Dear Ward: I am 1/8th Cree, Canadian/American Indian. And would like to ask you just one question. How many of those children would of been saved if Saddam Hussein wasn't stealing money to build Palace's. Bluesily, Curt
Of course no response!
He's toast.
I wonder if Gadhafi is disappointed to learn that he is not actually a Cherokee blood brother now that WC has been exposed as a fake...
So he met with one of our allies? What's the big deal. /sarcasm
Shady dealings are his specialty.
So the imposter Churchill met with another show biz type albeit dangerous now emasculated Khaddafi? And to top it off, he met with Khaddafi to discuss support for Indians and treaties...this with a paranoiac dictator who comes froim a long line paranoiac monsters.
If I were Indian (and I am probably more Indian than he is) I would be embarrassed to be represented in any fashion by this certified lunatic.
It seems that if a material misrepresentation is made to obtain employment, particularly in the public sector, there is not only grounds for termination, but the salary and benefits have to be returned. For instance, in California, an official who lied about a college degree was convicted of fraudulently obtaining the salary and benefits he was paid, and was sentenced, in addition to having to pay it back. This guy is so arrogant and rude and naively vain ithat it wouldn't matter what persuasion he is: his downfall will be a pleasure to witness.
No human being on Earth should be granted tenure for life.
i posted that churchill went to libya several weeks ago.
The more I read about him, the more he reminds me of john kerry
"Kolmer said it's clear CU wants to fire Churchill cause of his political views."
that's a misrepresentation. that's why universities have tenure.
more likely, IF the university fired him it would be for lying on his applications.
I'm tellin' ya, Howard Dean's got some competition!
I saw this kook on CSPAN. He acts like a drunk in a bar. Besides, with only a master's he isn't even qualified to be a professor at most Universities. What an arrogant mediocrity.
will he have the balls to resign?
or, will he make the university go thru' an arduous process to remove him?
Where is Homeland Security on this? As far as I'm concerned, this goes WAY beyond "freedom of speech". This guy goes beyond "terrorist sympathizer".
He is a terrorist supporter - and it's starting to look like he did more direct support than we would have guessed.
HE needs to be in GitMo....
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.