Posted on 06/10/2005 4:36:30 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Since the inception of controversy over University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, the Rocky Mountain News has led all other media in news coverage, investigation and analysis. Now, that newspaper has published the results of a detailed, exhaustive two-month investigation into multiple allegations against the embattled professor.
The five-part series of reports, which began on June 4, constitute remarkable journalism of a kind too rarely practiced, regardless of subject matter. It is thorough; it is careful; it is balanced. It is investigatory and scholarly, analytical and insightful, as clear and as compellingly written as any complicated, contentious story can be.
Here are the first two paragraphs from the June 4 introductory article, by-lined by Charlie Brennan, Kevin Flynn, Laura Frank, Berny Morson and Kevin Vaughan:
“University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill fabricated historical facts, published the work of others as his own and repeatedly made false claims about two federal Indian laws, a Rocky Mountain News investigation has found.
“The two-month News investigation, carried out at the same time Churchill and his work are being carefully examined by the university, also unearthed fresh genealogical information that casts new doubts on the professor’s long-held assertion that he is of American Indian ancestry.”
For anyone even remotely interested in the Ward Churchill/University of Colorado controversy, the entire series is definitive reading. For anyone interested in journalism as it can and should be practiced, it is mandatory reading. This is how it’s done, deserving of the widest possible readership and praise, for the by-lined reporters who wrote it, for the editors who oversaw it, and for the newspaper that committed its resources and talent to it.
Read the Rocky Mountain News investigation here
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/news/churchill/indexDay5.shtml
Good. Fire him and make him get his hair cut.
Thanks for the ping Char!
My guess is that the university will ignore this information and pay off this low life lying dog.
And tell him that the dark glasses look only worked for the late, great Roy Orbison!
I've been following this series. It is some of the best investigative journalism (and I use the word unironically here) I have seen in my life. However, don't look for it to receive any Pulitzers. Then again, I could be wrong. If Dorothy Rabinowitz can win the Pulitzer... But that could have been a fluke on the part of the committee.
Churchill claims that his type of work is common in academia. I'm sure the rest of the faculty would like to differ. Who needs friends anyway.
This all makes me wonder: who's brighter Churchill or Howard Dean?
What a sweet read!
I care less about the ramblings of a fool, a liar, and a plagiarizer than I do about the fast track hiring of the fool by a university that purports to have any integrity at all. God knows there will always be a job for Churchill at UMASS Amherst!
They gave him a pass on virtually any of the requirements normally expected of a candidate. I guess I should just check the "American Indian/Native American" box on the "voluntary" diversity/AA sheet and let the chips fall where they may. I can only presume that the liberal faculty will be so starry eyed about my "native American" background (which would not be a lie, by the way) that I would be hired, tenured and promoted to full Professor in the blink of an eye.
It must really suck to be one of the real American Indian candidates that got bumped for this charlatan. I would think that they would have cause to sue.
This is a great point. I'm one of those people who quick to mock the press when I think they've screwed up. So it's only fair to complement everyone who was involved with this wonderful series for a great job.
I haven't heard that. If so, it's the first thing that Ward Churchill and I agree on!
I've been wondering why we haven't seen such a suit ever since this story broke. Where is the ACLU on this one, for instance?!
Char (:
He walks the campus in his trademark blue jeans and wraparound sunglasses. He works at the computer in his basement office, where two walls are lined with books and videotapes. He lectures students — his most recent class, "Topical Issues/Native North America," ended May 26. He waits to see whether a student-voted teaching award, withheld while the investigation is ongoing, will be bestowed upon him. And he spars with reporters and detractors alike, arguing that he did nothing wrong, saying that his practices are standard in the academic world. All the while, the faculty committee works on.
What do you suppose their chances are, for winning a Pulitzer for this series?........slim to none? Who chooses Pulitzer winners anyway? Are they all liberals?
Char (:
And Slim just left town.
Excellent catch.
You do find the gold in the ore Char.
Cheers,
knews hound
http://knewshound.blogspot.com/
bookmark
"I would think that they would have cause to sue."
I've been wondering why we haven't seen such a suit ever since this story broke. Where is the ACLU on this one, for instance?!"
In my mind, it all fits with the liberal Democrat lipservice they give to minorities etc. In this case, the cause of liberal indoctrination in the nation's universities (and as a denizen of several New England, I am well acquainted with how liberalism has permeated the system) trumps the cause of the downtrodden minority group.
Liberals have their priorities you know! I just wish these minority groups would wake up and smell the twofaced coffee!
For example, look how Massachusetts (yes, THAT Massachusetts!) blacks had to sue white legislatures in Boston for gerrymandering their districts to disenfranchise them in order to keep themselves and their white cronies in power. Now if you really represented the needs of blacks in Boston, why would they feel the need to do that?
The ACLU, aptly renamed the American Criminal Liberties Union by Mark Levin, is a joke, a grossly biased liberal joke. They are systematically destroying everything that has made this country great under the guise of "protecting" what makes this country great. Kind of analogous to what Amnesty International is doing on a global scale.
They all should be tarred and feathered, then publicly ridiculed. But of course, that would require an MSM that was not itself liberally skewed. I am not opening that can of worms!
Cheers!
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.