Ward Churchill... Academic Failure?

[Dennis K]

Taken from the May 26 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education;

Ward Churchill, the professor who once likened victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks to "little Eichmanns", plagiarized, falsified, and fabricated meterial in his own research, an investigative panel at the University of Colorado at Boulder has found. The finding moves the university one step closer to firing the controversial professor.

A five-member committee, which released its 125-page report last week, found that Mr. Churchill had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, shown a "recurrent refusal to take responsibility for erros," and repeatedly demonstrated a "willingness to blame others for his troubles." The committee was made up of three professors from Boulder, one from Arizona State University, and one from the University of Texas at Austin.

Committee members agreed unamimously that the misconduct was serious, but they could not agree on the appropriate punishment. Two members of the committee said they thought that the misconduct was not serious enough to warrant his firing and that dismissing him would adversely affect the freedom of other scholars. Those two committee members recommended that Mr. Churchill be suspended without pay for two years.

The other three committee members said they thought the misconduct was serious enough to warrant dismissing the professor. One recommended that he be fired. The other two, while believing that dismissal was a reasonable punishment, recommended that he be suspended for five years without pay.

Karma.

[hoffmandu]

Taken from the May 26 edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education;

Ward Churchill, the professor who once likened victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks to "little Eichmanns", plagiarized, falsified, and fabricated meterial in his own research, an investigative panel at the University of Colorado at Boulder has found. The finding moves the university one step closer to firing the controversial professor.

A five-member committee, which released its 125-page report last week, found that Mr. Churchill had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, shown a "recurrent refusal to take responsibility for erros," and repeatedly demonstrated a "willingness to blame others for his troubles." The committee was made up of three professors from Boulder, one from Arizona State University, and one from the University of Texas at Austin.

Committee members agreed unamimously that the misconduct was serious, but they could not agree on the appropriate punishment. Two members of the committee said they thought that the misconduct was not serious enough to warrant his firing and that dismissing him would adversely affect the freedom of other scholars. Those two committee members recommended that Mr. Churchill be suspended without pay for two years.

The other three committee members said they thought the misconduct was serious enough to warrant dismissing the professor. One recommended that he be fired. The other two, while believing that dismissal was a reasonable punishment, recommended that he be suspended for five years without pay.

Karma.




Karma huh? Exactly who did Ward hurt or damage by his actions? This is indeed America, a country founded on free expression without retaliation. The way I see it, he was fired for exactly what this nation was trying to prevent. I don't even agree with the guy but ya know what? He's free to believe anything he wants AND talk about it. The whole thing reaks of faschism and I think those directors made a mistake. And it's not like there wasn't any academic background to somewhat support his conclusion.

[Dennis K]

Karma huh? Exactly who did Ward hurt or damage by his actions? This is indeed America, a country founded on free expression without retaliation. The way I see it, he was fired for exactly what this nation was trying to prevent. I don't even agree with the guy but ya know what? He's free to believe anything he wants AND talk about it. The whole thing reaks of faschism and I think those directors made a mistake. And it's not like there wasn't any academic background to somewhat support his conclusion.



Yeah, karma. You really shouldn't go around calling the victims of 9/11 little Eichmann's (and yes, I know he later attempted to clarify his statement), and you may also want to reread the article, he hasn't been fired or even suspended yet.

[hoffmandu]

Yeah, karma. You really shouldn't go around calling the victims of 9/11 little Eichmann's (and yes, I know he later attempted to clarify his statement), and you may also want to reread the article, he hasn't been fired or even suspended yet.

We both know damn well what's going to happen, Denny. I , personally, think it's ridiculous to even consider punishing the guy. And the 2-5 year suspension seems like a shitty way to disguise being fired. And why, may I ask, should he NOT say that? He is just as entitled to his opinion as you or I.

[Matt Algren]

Karma huh? Exactly who did Ward hurt or damage by his actions? This is indeed America, a country founded on free expression without retaliation. The way I see it, he was fired for exactly what this nation was trying to prevent. I don't even agree with the guy but ya know what? He's free to believe anything he wants AND talk about it. The whole thing reaks of faschism and I think those directors made a mistake. And it's not like there wasn't any academic background to somewhat support his conclusion.Of course he's free to say what he wants. But the school is just as free to not have him represent them, especially since it turns out that he's a liar, a fraud, and a plagiarizer on top of being a colossal butthole.

[hoffmandu]

Of course he's free to say what he wants. But the school is just as free to not have him represent them, especially since it turns out that he's a liar, a fraud, and a plagiarizer on top of being a colossal butthole.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that he's is any of these things and still employed. If he WAS indeed a liar, fraud, etc. he would probably be terminated immediatly. Something's rotten in Denmark, and it aint right.

[Dennis K]

We both know damn well what's going to happen, Denny. I , personally, think it's ridiculous to even consider punishing the guy. He is just as entitled to his opinion as you or I.


Yes, he's certainly entitled to his opinion and to say what he wants, but would you deny the school the right to respond?

[StoneGold]

"recurrent refusal to take responsibility for erros,"



IRONY!!!


And that's not the only thing spelled wrong, just the most ironic.

[Matt Algren]

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that he's is any of these things and still employed. If he WAS indeed a liar, fraud, etc. he would probably be terminated immediatly. Something's rotten in Denmark, and it aint right.
More likely the Board is trying to cover its ass. He's fairly high profile, and IIRC he has tenure.

[hoffmandu]

Yes, he's certainly entitled to his opinion and to say what he wants, but would you deny the school the right to respond?

The school has every right to respond but I think they're going to be looking at a major lawsuit involving punishment over free speech. I mean, you have to admit, the "investigatory commitee" knows they want him out, they just need to find solid grounds for it.......it reminds me of the film Philidelphia, the fired him because he was gay, but they claimed incompentence.

[BoosterBronze]

We both know damn well what's going to happen, Denny. I , personally, think it's ridiculous to even consider punishing the guy. And the 2-5 year suspension seems like a shitty way to disguise being fired. And why, may I ask, should he NOT say that? He is just as entitled to his opinion as you or I.

If this guy is a college profesor, he is NOT as entitled to expressing whatever willy-nilly thought flies into his noggin as we are. Unlike us, who can pontificate like a bunch of assholes all we like, people in his position have an obligation and a responsibility not to say things that are "plagarized, falsified, or fabricated" as the article says this gentleman did.

[Matt Algren]

...this gentleman did.Don't call him that. Gives a bad name to us real life gentlemen.

[StoneGold]

If this guy is a college profesor, he is NOT as entitled to expressing whatever willy-nilly thought flies into his noggin as we are. Unlike us, who can pontificate like a bunch of assholes all we like, people in his position have an obligation and a responsibility not to say things that are "plagarized, falsified, or fabricated" as the article says this gentleman did.
The only problem is, the article doesn't say what he plagarized (again with the misspelled words!), falsified, or fabricated. So I really have no idea what to be indignant about.

[phoenixrising]

Boy, I'll bet all of the liberals will be really upset about this. He's their hero.

(I figured I'd just get that inevitable comment out of the way now to save certain posters the trouble of spreading such falsities themselves. My good deed for the day)

[BoosterBronze]

He obviously falsified research on Nazi cloning techniques that would have prooved that everyone who died on 9/11 were IN FACT little Eichmans.

[howyadoin]

The school has every right to respond but I think they're going to be looking at a major lawsuit involving punishment over free speech.Free speech, or hate speech?

[Michael P]

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that he's is any of these things and still employed.
I say the same thing about George Bush. And yet he is.

[Dennis K]

"recurrent refusal to take responsibility for erros,"



IRONY!!!


And that's not the only thing spelled wrong, just the most ironic.



That's what happens when you're trying to type fast.

[Dennis K]

The only problem is, the article doesn't say what he plagarized (again with the misspelled words!), falsified, or fabricated. So I really have no idea what to be indignant about.



Shouldn't you be finding a picture from Married With Children to tie into this thread?

[hoffmandu]

If this guy is a college profesor, he is NOT as entitled to expressing whatever willy-nilly thought flies into his noggin as we are. Unlike us, who can pontificate like a bunch of assholes all we like, people in his position have an obligation and a responsibility not to say things that are "plagarized, falsified, or fabricated" as the article says this gentleman did.

Yes, he certainly is entitled to his opinion! Why would he not be? Because he's employed? Give me break, dude, what are you smoking? You know how many professors out there are anti-Gov and preach it all day long to impressionable young students for no other reason than to persuade them to the cause? Shitloads. The way i understood it, this guy wrote a paper.......it wasn't even class related.

[macul]

Yes, he certainly is entitled to his opinion! Why would he not be? Because he's employed? Give me break, dude, what are you smoking? You know how many professors out there are anti-Gov and preach it all day long to impressionable young students for no other reason than to persuade them to the cause? Shitloads. The way i understood it, this guy wrote a paper.......it wasn't even class related.

Look at it this way: had any of his students been caught plagiarizing, cheating, et cetera, they would have been failed at the very least and most likely expelled. I don't think it is out of the question to expect professors to be held to those same standards.

[howyadoin]

Yes, he certainly is entitled to his opinion! Why would he not be? Because he's employed? Give me break, dude, what are you smoking? You know how many professors out there are anti-Gov and preach it all day long to impressionable young students for no other reason than to persuade them to the cause? Shitloads. The way i understood it, this guy wrote a paper.......it wasn't even class related.So you're claiming he didn't falsify anything? The plagiarism accusations are a frame-up, then?

[hoffmandu]

So you're claiming he didn't falsify anything? The plagiarism accusations are a frame-up, then?

Nope, not claiming he did or didn't, but I'm not gonna crucify the guy until I see the facts, and that article had absolutely zero facts on that subject.

[Adam Crocker]

The only problem is, the article doesn't say what he plagarized (again with the misspelled words!), falsified, or fabricated. So I really have no idea what to be indignant about.

Indeed. Well this is all standard stuff that any prof would be hunt out to dry for, without context it's really hard to muster some sort of commentary on this, so I hit google...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/16/churchill

Some critics of the university from the right have said that Churchill never should have been hired and some critics from the left have noted that Churchill never attempted to hide the views that eventually led to so much scrutiny. The committee, in a nod to both sets of critics, wrote: “We point out finally that when Professor Churchill was hired as an associate professor with tenure in 1991 and promoted to (full) professor in 1997, the university knew that he did not have a Ph.D. or law degree, as commonly expected for faculty at this institution, and was aware that he was a controversial public intellectual.”

Hm, did not actually have a Ph.D. or law degree, yet he was hired? I've heard of Churchill's name before, but I really haven't read much by him or about him up until the "Little Eichmanns" comment. I did a background check and I didn't find anything about the circumstances of his hiring by the University of Colorado, but I did discover that lied about his military service. (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2005/0205/021105-ward-churchill.htm)

The 125 page report (http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf) by the Standing Committee goes into detail as percisely what he did. I'll comment after I've gotten a chance to read it more thoroughly, but it doesn't get into the substance of the allegations until about page 11.

[hoffmandu]

Indeed. Well this is all standard stuff that any prof would be hunt out to dry for, without context it's really hard to muster some sort of commentary on this, so I hit google...

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/05/16/churchill



Hm, did not actually have a Ph.D. or law degree, yet he was hired? I've heard of Churchill's name before, but I really haven't read much by him or about him up until the "Little Eichmanns" comment. I did a background check and I didn't find anything about the circumstances of his hiring by the University of Colorado, but I did discover that lied about his military service. (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2005/0205/021105-ward-churchill.htm)

The 125 page report (http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf) by the Standing Committee goes into detail as percisely what he did. I'll comment after I've gotten a chance to read it more thoroughly, but it doesn't get into the substance of the allegations until about page 11.



Hmmm, not exactly the funnest thing I've ever read.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Exactly who did Ward hurt or damage by his actions?


By engaging in bullshit research full of unsupported claims, plagiarism, miscited sources, etc., and by teaching such bullshit as fact, he damaged the education of his students, the reputation of his school and the general public's sense of the quality of work done in his field of study (narrowly, Indian studies, more generally, history).

That's plenty of reason right there to fire the guy, honestly.

[BoosterBronze]

Yes, he certainly is entitled to his opinion! Why would he not be? Because he's employed? Give me break, dude, what are you smoking?

You're apparently confusing unpopular speech ("Little Eichmans") with academic dishonesty (plagariazing etc.).

[BcAugust]

By engaging in bullshit research full of unsupported claims, plagiarism, miscited sources, etc., and by teaching such bullshit as fact, he damaged the education of his students, the reputation of his school and the general public's sense of the quality of work done in his field of study (narrowly, Indian studies, more generally, history).

That's plenty of reason right there to fire the guy, honestly.

Actually, hitting the Native American websites would tell you tons of what he's plagurized and the lied about. Heck, the tribes were trying to get him kicked out way before the nine eleven bit. Then again, I could make the comment that doesn't matter, it's just a bunch of Indians then. After all, what would they know about the truth of the matter?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Actually, hitting the Native American websites would tell you tons of what he's plagurized and the lied about. Heck, the tribes were trying to get him kicked out way before the nine eleven bit. Then again, I could make the comment that doesn't matter, it's just a bunch of Indians then. After all, what would they know about the truth of the matter?

I'm not surprised to hear the tribes concluded this guy was a douchebag ages before academia got around to figuring that out. Somewhat dismayed, but given the slowness and cluelessness which are so endemic in academia, not surprised.

[Sir Tim Drake]

If this guy is a college profesor, he is NOT as entitled to expressing whatever willy-nilly thought flies into his noggin as we are.

So you don't think that free speech applies equally to everyone?

[Noah Johnson]

So you don't think that free speech applies equally to everyone?
He's saying that professional ethics are extremely important in academia, which is true. I can see how it could be misread, though.

And yeah, quite likely he's not much of a professor. Of course, the country's covered in people who aren't very good at their jobs. The only reason we're pretending to care about this one is that the right wing made him a celebrity in an attempt to disguise their own steady drumbeat of eliminationist hate.

[howyadoin]

He's saying that professional ethics are extremely important in academia, which is true. I can see how it could be misread, though.

And yeah, quite likely he's not much of a professor.Well, he's certainly done lots of professing...

[Iangould]

If this guy is a college profesor, he is NOT as entitled to expressing whatever willy-nilly thought flies into his noggin as we are. Unlike us, who can pontificate like a bunch of assholes all we like, people in his position have an obligation and a responsibility not to say things that are "plagarized, falsified, or fabricated" as the article says this gentleman did.

He's not entitled to engage in academic misconduct - plagiarism etc - but the whole point of tenure is to allow professors to "express whatever willy-nilly thought flies into his noggin" - like, say, expressing a belief in evolution in the 19th century or advocating civil rights or arguing that homosexuality wasn't a mental disease in the 20th century.

[Iangould]

Free speech, or hate speech?

I forget the guy's name but there was an academic here who wrote a blatantly racist article opposing Asian and African immigration to Australia.

It was actually published in the Law Review of his university.

There were howls of outrage but the university hung tough and refused to interfere with the editorial freedom of the journal.

So far as I know, the guy still has his job.

One man's free speech is another man's hate speech - so unless there's some clear intent to incite unlawful actions you should err on the side of free speech.

[Wesley Dodds]

Ian's right, the point of tenure is to allow academic freedom -- and that includes the freedom to be batshit insane.

The "academic freedom" movements in the US are in bad faith -- they want to end academic freedom, not protect it.

This is what Noam Chomsky calls "Thief! Thief!" That is, when you're caught with a hand in someone's pocket, the best way to get out of the situation is to begin yelling "Thief! Thief!"

[Calybos]

The article mingles two unrelated issues: Churchill's (alleged) academic misconduct, and his unpopular opinion piece with the Eichmanns reference.

The former is definitely reason to dismiss a professor: dishonesty, plagiarism, lying about credentials, etc., are all valid reasons for him to be fired (if true).

But the latter, just as definitely, is not. No opinion piece, no matter how unpopular--even outrageous--is sufficient grounds for firing a professor.

[Adam Crocker]

Hmmm, not exactly the funnest thing I've ever read.

Well no, it isn't supposed to be.

[Sabrinaset]

The University stood up and defended him for his "Little Eichmanns" comment, even knowing they'd catch hell for it. On the other hand, he's a fraud and a hack. My dad, a teacher himself, says Ward gives his profession a bad name.

For those of you who were wondering about the plagarism, here's a link which features the art "The Mystic Warriors of the Plains" by Thomas Mails...and "Winter Attack" "by" Ward Churchill. There have been other reports of plagarism, but this should do for a start.


http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

[howyadoin]

For those of you who were wondering about the plagarism, here's a link which features the art "The Mystic Warriors of the Plains" by Thomas Mails...and "Winter Attack" "by" Ward Churchill. There have been other reports of plagarism, but this should do for a start.

http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.htmlI knew this scumbag was a fucking con artist, but that's so blatant it's ridiculous.

[Iangould]

Not to sound like I'm splitting hairs here but copying a copyrighted picture, while illegal and immoral, also doesn't constitute academic misconduct.

The plagiarism would have to be of academic work to qualify as academic misconduct.

Simple criminal offences (or general scumbaggery/moral turpitude) really only justify dismissal of a tenured academic if they impinge directly on their area of expertise (example - an African-American Studies professor who was a KKK member; a women's studies professor convicted of spousal abuse; a theology professor who expressed anti-Christian sentiments) or result in consequences (such as jail time) that prevent them from carrying out their duties.

[Sabrinaset]

Well, for a somewhat more concise report of his misconduct, including what would directly affected his academic career...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_misconduct_allegations

[K'Nort]

The article mingles two unrelated issues: Churchill's (alleged) academic misconduct, and his unpopular opinion piece with the Eichmanns reference.

The former is definitely reason to dismiss a professor: dishonesty, plagiarism, lying about credentials, etc., are all valid reasons for him to be fired (if true).

But the latter, just as definitely, is not. No opinion piece, no matter how unpopular--even outrageous--is sufficient grounds for firing a professor.

They are somewhat related. Specifically, his unpopular statements drastically increased the odds that people would be willing to take the effort to dig up dirt on him.

[Iangould]

Falsely claiming to be of indigenous descent is EXACTLY the sort of thing that justifies removing the tenure of an "Indian Studies" professor since it's likely to make genuine Native Americans deeply suspicious of him and unwilling to work with him.

[BcAugust]

Falsely claiming to be of indigenous descent is EXACTLY the sort of thing that justifies removing the tenure of an "Indian Studies" professor since it's likely to make genuine Native Americans deeply suspicious of him and unwilling to work with him.

Well, that and the fact that by claiming he's part of the tribe and getting things said in that manner...

It was one of the things that bugged me when the first reports of the 911 speech came out, was how much racism was in some of the reporting(as far as I'm aware, the AP just said he was an native studies professor. Some of the headlines in other papers, though...). Any corrections to that, or in fact the tribe in question answering the speech were very small.

[Calybos]

They are somewhat related. Specifically, his unpopular statements drastically increased the odds that people would be willing to take the effort to dig up dirt on him.
Good point. This whole "scandal" does smack of a pretext cooked up to dispose of a professor who said something the hicks didn't like.

Sort of like digging through a high-school teacher's credentials once you find out he's gay. "There's gotta be something here we can use...."

Leave the smear tactics to the professionals, folks. They'll tell us who to vote for.

[Dennis K]

Good point. This whole "scandal" does smack of a pretext cooked up to dispose of a professor who said something the hicks didn't like.


Okay, I'm confused, just exactly who are the hicks?

[hoffmandu]

Good point. This whole "scandal" does smack of a pretext cooked up to dispose of a professor who said something the hicks didn't like.

Sort of like digging through a high-school teacher's credentials once you find out he's gay. "There's gotta be something here we can use...."

Leave the smear tactics to the professionals, folks. They'll tell us who to vote for.


Well put, and I agree. We all have skeletons that anyone at any given time can uncover. I think it's low do take such actions against anyone, if you're going to fire him, do it, but do it for the right reasons, not just based a guys questionable opinion.

[Iangould]

I hacve had a fair bit to do wih indigenous groups here in Queensland, if an Australian academic falsely claimed indigenous descent, the indigenous peopel here would be demanding his resignation.

This is not a trivial issue and it is not one that's simply been manufactured.

[hoffmandu]

I hacve had a fair bit to do wih indigenous groups here in Queensland, if an Australian academic falsely claimed indigenous descent, the indigenous peopel here would be demanding his resignation.

This is not a trivial issue and it is not one that's simply been manufactured.

i agree with this as well, but it doesn't change the fact that the university's issue with Ward was related to his paper, not his background. It's a smear campaign, nothing more, they wanted a reason to fire the guy, so they're gonna find a reason. It's very strange to me that they let him in without a PHD though.

[Charles RB]

The way I see it, he was fired for exactly what this nation was trying to prevent.

America is trying to prevent researchers and University professors from plagiarising, falsifying, and fabricating material in their research? Well, good for America! Guys that do that are jerks.

He's free to believe anything he wants AND talk about it.

He's not free to falsify material in his research though. That's one of the things he's not meant to do. That's why he's getting fired.

[macul]

Well put, and I agree. We all have skeletons that anyone at any given time can uncover. I think it's low do take such actions against anyone, if you're going to fire him, do it, but do it for the right reasons, not just based a guys questionable opinion.

He lied. Don't forget that.

[hoffmandu]

He lied. Don't forget that.

Yeah, so do I, so do you, and so did your parents.

[Charles RB]

Yeah, so do I, so do you, and so did your parents.

So you lied and falsified research material whilst in a professional capacity?

[macul]

Yeah, so do I, so do you, and so did your parents.

My apologies. We must have met at some point, right? Otherwise you shouldn't pretend to know me.

If I lied at my job or in the process of obtaining a job, I'd be fired upon discovery. The only thing saving this guy so far is that he's a "professor" with tenure. Any other field (except politics) and he'd be out on his ass.

[hoffmandu]

So you lied and falsified research material whilst in a professional capacity?

You know that his "lies" are not really lies, right? American cololnials did in fact use small pox (and other germ warfare) back in the days. It's disputed, but's it's not technically false (in fact, there's more evidence to support than deny). These type of tactics date back to Spanish Inquisition (they really did this) and continued over to North AMerica. 50% of the Indian pop were killed, and it wasn't all by knife and bullet.

[BoosterBronze]

Okay, I'm confused, just exactly who are the hicks?

The Hicks: Anyone who disagrees with a outrageous, often far left, political stance. See Also: Rednecks, Johny Sixpack, Religious Fundamentalists/Religious Fanatics, Morons, Middle America.

[Charles RB]

You know that his "lies" are not really lies, right?

So you've got more evidence saying he didn't falsify evidence than the tribunal had evidence saying he did, and you've compared the two?

[Naldo]

My apologies. We must have met at some point, right? Otherwise you shouldn't pretend to know me.

If I lied at my job or in the process of obtaining a job, I'd be fired upon discovery. The only thing saving this guy so far is that he's a "professor" with tenure. Any other field (except politics) and he'd be out on his ass.

macul, Churchill is one of their own, so there's very little that he could do other than maybe rape then slaughter a baby on camera that would get many of these people to acknowledge what he's done.

They could take a lesson from Jeffrey Kramer, who, as an academic himself understands these actions and posts them in the correct light.

Keep everything the same, but replace the name "Ward Churchill" with "Dick Cheney" and they'd be calling for the gallows.

[Tom]

Ward Churchill is a complete nobody. He's not claimed by the left nor is he supported by them. He's a loon that no one ever heard of prior to certain people on the right making him out to be more important than he ever was.

[hoffmandu]

macul, Churchill is one of their own, so there's very little that he could do other than maybe rape then slaughter a baby on camera that would get many of these people to acknowledge what he's done.

They could take a lesson from Jeffrey Kramer, who, as an academic himself understands these actions and posts them in the correct light.

Keep everything the same, but replace the name "Ward Churchill" with "Dick Cheney" and they'd be calling for the gallows.

The truth is, I'm republican and I don't agree with what this guy said about 9/11's victims. However, I respect his opinion and THE balls it must taken to speak out. I don't think it's fair for anyone to dig this guys grave for expressing feelings & beliefs that are not necessarily wrong.

[K'Nort]

It's like how so many people with outstanding warrants for things like homicide are caught via being pulled over for reckless driving. If you've done something seriously (punishably) wrong, playing it safe is a good idea. If you've falsified your credentials -- which gets ANYONE fired when they get caught -- making inflammatory comments on a nationwide level pretty much guarantees that the falsification will get uncovered.

[Naldo]

Ward Churchill is a complete nobody. He's not claimed by the left nor is he supported by them. He's a loon that no one ever heard of prior to certain people on the right making him out to be more important than he ever was.

You're absolutely right Tom. Churchill's problem is that he made a fairly outrageous and offensive statement which brought public scrutiny upon himself. It was then discovered that he's something of a fraud which really inflated the story.

Had he made these statements, yet had iron clad credentials, this story MAY have been forgotten already, or he, perhaps, may have become a banner carrier. Who knows really, but he's the only one to blame for his current situation.

[K'Nort]

I don't think it's fair for anyone to dig this guys grave for expressing feelings & beliefs that are not necessarily wrong.

How does that mean he should get a pass on unrelated behaviour that would get any other faculty member -- no matter how popular -- fired?

[Naldo]

The truth is, I'm republican and I don't agree with what this guy said about 9/11's victims. However, I respect his opinion and THE balls it must taken to speak out. I don't think it's fair for anyone to dig this guys grave for expressing feelings & beliefs that are not necessarily wrong.

You are missing the point.

This has ZERO to do with him speaking out. It has everything to do with him being a fraud. The report doesn't say anything about someone expressing beliefs or feelings, but rather the plagiarism etc...

[macul]

The truth is, I'm republican and I don't agree with what this guy said about 9/11's victims. However, I respect his opinion and THE balls it must taken to speak out. I don't think it's fair for anyone to dig this guys grave for expressing feelings & beliefs that are not necessarily wrong.

And he also lied. Had he simply made the stupid remarks and gotten fired then I could see a problem with it. I'd probably still side on the, "He has to live with what he said, so if more power to them if they want to can him." side of the argument, but when you toss in the fact that he lied, repeatedly, then the situation becomes clear. If I lie on my job I get kicked to the curb. What's different about this guy?

[Dennis K]

The Hicks: Anyone who disagrees with a outrageous, often far left, political stance. See Also: Rednecks, Johny Sixpack, Religious Fundamentalists/Religious Fanatics, Morons, Middle America.



See, I'm still confused, his comments really did piss off/insult a lot of people and the school stood behind him. It seems to me that, at least on the face of it, his current problems are something he brought upon himself.


Also, isn't it stretching it a bit far to label Middle America (and what does that mean exactly) as hicks/morons?

[BoosterBronze]

You know that his "lies" are not really lies, right? American cololnials did in fact use small pox (and other germ warfare) back in the days. It's disputed, but's it's not technically false (in fact, there's more evidence to support than deny). These type of tactics date back to Spanish Inquisition (they really did this) and continued over to North AMerica. 50% of the Indian pop were killed, and it wasn't all by knife and bullet.

Even if we take that statement as 100% true, that does nothing to lessen the charge of plagarizing or falsifying sources.

If I write an academic paper claiming man landed on the moon, but used nothing but made up interviews with fictional people I've falsified sources. My paper is NOT TRUE. Even if it's based on real interviews, if I copy it from someone else that's called plaiarism.

The entire academc world is based on peer-review and accountability. That's the issue with this dude. Polio-blankets are not.

[Mr_Fox]

Well put, and I agree. We all have skeletons that anyone at any given time can uncover. I think it's low do take such actions against anyone, if you're going to fire him, do it, but do it for the right reasons, not just based a guys questionable opinion.

The problem here is that his questionable opinions are leading to the university being perceived as a laughing-stock, and the university has to protect what reputation it has. I'm not at all surprised that, after his "Little Eichmanns" comment, people started digging up other questionable, and even actionable, behavior about him. I'm quite sure that if I started saying equally ridiculous opinions in my classes, some parent group would start investigating me, and I'm also just as sure that my school would not renew my contract as I would have made them look bad. Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from the consequences of said speech, it just means Congess can't tell you what to say, or not to say. The university is not Congress. In short, he's free to say whatever he wants to, just not necessarily on their dime. His professional activities make it much, much worse. If I were on the board, I would have voted to fire him, and the fraud he has displayed is reason enough to do so. Professional ethics have to mean something.

I'm also reminded of James Watt and Jocelyn Elders, both of which said the most inane things, and were let go by Reagan and Clinton respectively, because each, due to their comments, became lightning-rods of criticism and poor reflections of the then-current administrations. What they did was not the stifling of freedom of speech, but rather setting their house in order. This is no different.

[BoosterBronze]

See, I'm still confused, his comments really did piss off/insult a lot of people and the school stood behind him. It seems to me that, at least on the face of it, his current problems are something he brought upon himself.


Also, isn't it stretching it a bit far to label Middle America (and what does that mean exactly) as hicks/morons?

I was trying to be sarcastic with my responce, though I do think people are rude and dismissive when they label people who disagree with them 'hicks'. (Or anyone 'hicks' for that matter)

[Samurai]

Ward Churchill lies in everything he does... I wonder if its pathological? Here are a couple of pictures Churchill sold as his own art:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/xl.jpg

http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/ward%20churchill%20little%20big%20man%20large.JPG

And here are the originals...

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/thomas%20mails.jpg

http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/111LittleBigMan.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001596.htm
http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

[hoffmandu]

Even if we take that statement as 100% true, that does nothing to lessen the charge of plagarizing or falsifying sources.

If I write an academic paper claiming man landed on the moon, but used nothing but made up interviews with fictional people I've falsified sources. My paper is NOT TRUE. Even if it's based on real interviews, if I copy it from someone else that's called plaiarism.

The entire academc world is based on peer-review and accountability. That's the issue with this dude. Polio-blankets are not.


Yeah, it's true, that's what happening. The bigger issue here, is that he was targeted purely over his expression of views/beliefs. That's a direct violation of the Constitution, a retalitory action has been taken against this man for doing nothing more than speaking his mind. It's the catalyst, you can't deny that.

[Charles RB]

However, I respect his opinion and THE balls it must taken to speak out.

Being an arsehole means you've got balls now?

The bigger issue here, is that he was targeted purely over his expression of views/beliefs. That's a direct violation of the Constitution, a retalitory action has been taken against this man for doing nothing more than speaking his mind.

And then it turned out he'd lied & falsified research material, which is an offence professors get fired for, so his employers fired him. That's not a violation of the Constitution.

[macul]

That's a direct violation of the Constitution, a retalitory action has been taken against this man for doing nothing more than speaking his mind.

No it isn't. Congress isn't shutting him up or firing him.

[hoffmandu]

No it isn't. Congress isn't shutting him up or firing him.

HUH? Explain what you think Freedom of Speech is, and how it's regulated?

[Tom]

HUH? Explain what you think Freedom of Speech is, and how it's regulated?
You've got it wrong here. The first amendment ensures that THE GOVERNMENT cannot restrict free speech.

[Ed Cunard]

HUH? Explain what you think Freedom of Speech is, and how it's regulated?

Not the issue. Plagiarism is. However... the Freedom of Speech thing? The First Amendment? Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Technically, Macul's right on that.

But, really, for whatever reason he was under more scrutiny, that whole plagiarism thing? Bad, bad and more bad on top of bad. Bad salad with Bad salad dressing.

[macul]

HUH? Explain what you think Freedom of Speech is, and how it's regulated?

Congress shall...

not

Anyone shall...

[Adam Crocker]

HUH? Explain what you think Freedom of Speech is, and how it's regulated?

Well the first amendment says that the government cannot infringe on your right to free speech. This does not mean that a University can fire you for violating the professional standards of your chosen profession. You're being awfully obtuse here. The University of Colorado did not punish him for his 'little Eichmanns' comment because whatever the stupidity of it he was not violating the professional standards that he had to follow as a professor and researcher. Did this lead to people digging up dirt on him? Yes, however, as it turns out he did violate those standards and this is what he is going to punished for. The University still has to enforce the professional rules of research in order to maintain its credibility and the honesty of its researchers. This is what he agreed to when he entered the profession. It's no different than a board in the medical or psychological professions upholding the standards of their professions by censuring those practitioners that violate them.

[Dennis K]

I was trying to be sarcastic with my responce, though I do think people are rude and dismissive when they label people who disagree with them 'hicks'. (Or anyone 'hicks' for that matter)


Damn, my sarcasm detector must be on the fritz again.

[Adam Crocker]

macul, Churchill is one of their own, so...

Hoffmandu is the only one here who has defended Churchill though.

[hoffmandu]

Congress shall...

not

Anyone shall...


Shit, you're right. Still, his speaking out is the catalyst. It bothers me that if I say something that someone does not agree with they can legally come down on me. That doesn't seem like free speech to me. Lets say, for instance, he did not plagiarize, he did not "lie". Would you still agree with what's happening here? Do you think the university would still pursue termination, because I think they definitely would.

[Joe Rice]

Shit, you're right. Still, his speaking out is the catalyst. It bothers me that if I say something that someone does not agree with they can legally come down on me. That doesn't seem like free speech to me. Lets say, for instance, he did not plagiarize, he did not "lie". Would you still agree with what's happening here? Do you think the university would still pursue termination, because I think they definitely would.

I'm pretty sure macul said he WOULD have a problem with that.

[Dennis K]

Shit, you're right. Still, his speaking out is the catalyst. It bothers me that if I say something that someone does not agree with they can legally come down on me. That doesn't seem like free speech to me. Lets say, for instance, he did not plagiarize, he did not "lie". Would you still agree with what's happening here? Do you think the university would still pursue termination, because I think they definitely would.


I don't. I think they would have been just as happy to let the whole matter fade away, which it had IMO. Also, even if he does lose his job, it's not like he's going to be on a streetcorner selling pencils or apples. I saw on CSPAN not too long ago debating some conservative whose name escapes me at the moment. I have no doubt he'd either wind up on the lecture circuit/find another teaching job of some sort or some combination of the two.

[Naldo]

Shit, you're right. Still, his speaking out is the catalyst. It bothers me that if I say something that someone does not agree with they can legally come down on me. That doesn't seem like free speech to me. Lets say, for instance, he did not plagiarize, he did not "lie". Would you still agree with what's happening here? Do you think the university would still pursue termination, because I think they definitely would.

But what is happening is happening because he plagiarized.

No one is going to come down on you legally for speaking out, even if you say something outrageous, but if you've been dishonest in your profession then you probably shouldn't be saying outrageous things, because your dishonesty will be found out and you will be prosecuted.

[hoffmandu]

Hoffmandu is the only one here who has defended Churchill though.

You know why? Because he's free to say whatever he wants. His faults aren't new faults, and I'm sure they didn't go un-noticed at the time. The whole thing seems strange. He's being outed and investigated because of the 9/11 comment.

[Matt Algren]

Shit, you're right. Still, his speaking out is the catalyst. It bothers me that if I say something that someone does not agree with they can legally come down on me. That doesn't seem like free speech to me. Lets say, for instance, he did not plagiarize, he did not "lie". Would you still agree with what's happening here? Do you think the university would still pursue termination, because I think they definitely would.
There were steps taken when this first came out, but nothing came of it. In fact, they supported him for a time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A76-2005Feb4.html). There's also the tertiary issue of Colorado education system politics.

At first, the colleges involved stood by the professor, citing the transcendent value of unfettered scholastic debate. 'Prof. Churchill's comments have precipitated a discussion we ought to have,' said Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman. Chancellor DiStefano said, 'I must support his right . . . to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant.' At Hamilton, Prof. Nancy Rabinowitz, who runs the forum where Churchill was to speak, argued last week that 'the students should hear his whole argument before they boil it down to a few sound bites.'

At their meeting Thursday, university regents said they were determined to act against Churchill. The regents have gone through a tough patch in recent months, accused of inaction on a series of scandals that badly sullied the school's reputation. When the Boulder County prosecutor charged that Colorado football coach Gary Barnett was using "sex and drugs" to recruit 17-year-old high school football stars, the regents held endless meetings and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a detailed investigation -- and then decided that nobody needed to be disciplined.

A lawsuit by two undergraduates who say they were gang-raped by Barnett's football players and recruits is pending. After a student athlete was accused of referring to a female student by a four-letter slang term referring to part of the female anatomy, President Hoffman declared that this "c-word" can sometimes be a "term of endearment." Students and faculty denounced the president for "hate speech." The regents again took no action.

So there's that. Still and all, I think the uni is absolutely right to decide that they don't want him on staff, based solely on the inflammatory statements he made on 9/11/01. He is a representative of their institution and should act accordingly. His piece of 9/11/01 doesn't show that he respects that.

[macul]

Shit, you're right. Still, his speaking out is the catalyst. It bothers me that if I say something that someone does not agree with they can legally come down on me. That doesn't seem like free speech to me. Lets say, for instance, he did not plagiarize, he did not "lie". Would you still agree with what's happening here? Do you think the university would still pursue termination, because I think they definitely would.

I don't know if they'd pursue termination. I'm in no position to say one way or another on that. If he just said something stupid, but didn't lie then I'd be on the fence most likely. For me that's an ugly situation. On one hand I wouldn't like to see someone fired for remarks. On the other I wouldn't fault the university for wanting to maintain a certain image.

I try to imagine what would happen in my job if I said something really stupid. Would I get fired? I dunno. I guess it depends on how much damage control my remarks required. I guess a university professor is a bit different from an IT guy working in a medical clinic, though. Different environment with different expectations.

With all that said, this isn't a matter of someone hitting him legally because they disagreed. The guy lied. Period. End of story. You can't lie and expect the lie to just blow over no matter how it is revealed. Sure, the lie might not have been the original reason he came under scrutiny, but I can't begin to tell you how many people I've seen fired once they brought themselves under the microscope.

[hoffmandu]

There were steps taken when this first came out, but nothing came of it. In fact, they supported him for a time (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A76-2005Feb4.html). There's also the tertiary issue of Colorado education system politics.



So there's that. Still and all, I think the uni is absolutely right to decide that they don't want him on staff, based solely on the inflammatory statements he made on 9/11/01. He is a representative of their institution and should act accordingly. His piece of 9/11/01 doesn't show that he respects that.




Jesus, after reading the rest of that, it really looks like the commitee is as flawed as it gets. "Term of Endearment"? Hmmm. Hard to disguise that kind of ineptness.

[Adam Crocker]

You know why? Because he's free to say whatever he wants.

Yes and the University is free to punish him if he violates the academic standards of his profession, which he did. Whatever the motivation from bringing up the accusations it does not change the fact that it turns out he's a plagarizer and a academic fraud.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You know that his "lies" are not really lies, right? American cololnials did in fact use small pox (and other germ warfare) back in the days. It's disputed, but's it's not technically false (in fact, there's more evidence to support than deny). These type of tactics date back to Spanish Inquisition (they really did this) and continued over to North AMerica. 50% of the Indian pop were killed, and it wasn't all by knife and bullet.

The lies in question aren't Churchill's arguments about smallpox. I also consider that a pretty well-supported fact, and in fact one reason I have disdain for Churchill is that his shoddy and unethical conduct gives ammunition to those who would defend the conduct of the US Government/military toward the individuals and deny the clear pattern of genocidal behavior with which the tribes have been subjected. His lies and unethical conduct allows the deniers to call into question the truth of the entire topic.

The problem people have with Churchill re: his academic work isn't what he argued, but rather that he made arguments for which he has no evidence, and he lied about what the facts and documentation actually say.

Some of his statements and behaviors really are lies. He demonstrably did miscite sources - stating other authors made statements which they did not make. He did state that in his writings that other sources said something, when in fact they said something else. Those are lies - they're lies when a certain poster here at CBR does that, and they're lies when Ward Churchill does it. He also made up citations that don't exist in order to supposedly support his arguments. That's a lie. It's unethical behavior in regard to research and academic writing.

[hoffmandu]

Yes and the University is free to punish him if he violates the academic standards of his profession, which he did. Whatever the motivation from bringing up the accusations it does not change the fact that it turns out he's a plagarizer and a academic fraud.

Yeah, then why only a suspension when these "crimes" clearly warrant firing?

[Charles RB]

Lets say, for instance, he did not plagiarize, he did not "lie". Would you still agree with what's happening here?

If he hadn't lied and falsified evidence, he wouldn't be facing discipline for lying and falsifying evidence and there wouldn't be anything happening.

[Matt Algren]

Yeah, then why only a suspension when these "crimes" clearly warrant firing?
It's a step in the procedure when they deal with tenured professors.

[hoffmandu]

If he hadn't lied and falsified evidence, he wouldn't be facing discipline for lying and falsifying evidence and there wouldn't be anything happening.

i don't believe the instances are seperate, the 9/11 comments are why he is being investigated. Also, does anyone else smell scapegoat after reading about the pressure put upon the commitee?

[Charles RB]

i don't believe the instances are seperate, the 9/11 comments are why he is being investigated.

And the investigation found out he'd lied and falsified evidence in his research, an offense you get fired for unless you're on tenure.

This is not a free speech issue. This is a guy-fucks-up-his-job-and-gets-booted issue.

[macul]

i don't believe the instances are seperate, the 9/11 comments are why he is being investigated. Also, does anyone else smell scapegoat after reading about the pressure put upon the commitee?

hoffmandu, he lied. He stole work and claimed credit for it. If I did that on my job, I'd be fired. If you did that, you'd be fired. If one of his students did that, they'd be expelled. What part of "he lied and stole work" isn't getting through? What do you hope to gain by sticking up for this guy?

[hoffmandu]

hoffmandu, he lied. He stole work and claimed credit for it. If I did that on my job, I'd be fired. If you did that, you'd be fired. If one of his students did that, they'd be expelled. What part of "he lied and stole work" isn't getting through? What do you hope to gain by sticking up for this guy?


What I'm trying to convince you of is, this committe is digging into this guys background for no other reason than they disagreed with the 9/11 stuff.....it bothers me, no other reason. Well, other than I'm bored at work and like to argue.

[Bradley]

I'm kind of torn on the Ward Churchill issue myself. As others have pointed out, the argument that his comments after 9/11 didn't play a role in this investigation is flat-out wrong. Having one of their professors become a "celebrity pinhead" on The O'Reilly Factor isn't something that any university would be proud of, and certainly the controversey surrounding the man and his ideas motivated this investigation.

With that said, it is true that the committee has found him guilty of some pretty serious infractions that warrant some type of penalty. Whether the invesitgation was politically-motivated or not, the fact is that, apparently, Churchill is guilty of academic dishonesty. I tend to think that professors who are discovered to be plagiarists or fraudulant researchers deserve to be fired from their posts; again, as others point out, academic dishonesty usually leads to a failing grade or even expulsion for the student, and professors should be held to a much higher standard.

Having said that, I also have to say that my opinion is apparently not the majority opinion, at least in the academy. The truth is, as The Chronicle of Higher Education has noted in at least two investigative pieces in the last two years or so, plagiarism among the professoriate is not unheard of. I won't say it happens frequently, but it happens often enough that people have begun writing and talking about it in the Chroncle. And the thing is, in most of the cases profiled in previous articles, suspension and termination are not the usual outcomes. The professor is punished for the transgression, certainly, but-- from what I've read-- the punishments are not nearly as draconian as the ones being discussed in Churchill's case.

As I said, I think academic dishonesty among professional scholars seriously harms both individual fields and the academy as a whole, and I would be in favor of employing harsher punishments to deal with plagiarists and other types of academic frauds. But I don't think Ward Churchill should be punished more severely than his colleagues who commit similar "crimes" just because his essay and subsequent book (neither of which, apparently, appear on his c.v.) upset people, which is what I suspect is happening in this case.

[hoffmandu]

I'm kind of torn on the Ward Churchill issue myself. As others have pointed out, the argument that his comments after 9/11 didn't play a role in this investigation is flat-out wrong. Having one of their professors become a "celebrity pinhead" on The O'Reilly Factor isn't something that any university would be proud of, and certainly the controversey surrounding the man and his ideas motivated this investigation.

With that said, it is true that the committee has found him guilty of some pretty serious infractions that warrant some type of penalty. Whether the invesitgation was politically-motivated or not, the fact is that, apparently, Churchill is guilty of academic dishonesty. I tend to think that professors who are discovered to be plagiarists or fraudulant researchers deserve to be fired from their posts; again, as others point out, academic dishonesty usually leads to a failing grade or even expulsion for the student, and professors should be held to a much higher standard.

Having said that, I also have to say that my opinion is apparently not the majority opinion, at least in the academy. The truth is, as The Chronicle of Higher Education has noted in at least two investigative pieces in the last two years or so, plagiarism among the professoriate is not unheard of. I won't say it happens frequently, but it happens often enough that people have begun writing and talking about it in the Chroncle. And the thing is, in most of the cases profiled in previous articles, suspension and termination are not the usual outcomes. The professor is punished for the transgression, certainly, but-- from what I've read-- the punishments are not nearly as draconian as the ones being discussed in Churchill's case.

As I said, I think academic dishonesty among professional scholars seriously harms both individual fields and the academy as a whole, and I would be in favor of employing harsher punishments to deal with plagiarists and other types of academic frauds. But I don't think Ward Churchill should be punished more severely than his colleagues who commit similar "crimes" just because his essay and subsequent book (neither of which, apparently, appear on his c.v.) upset people, which is what I suspect is happening in this case.


Nice post Brad. Well put.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Having said that, I also have to say that my opinion is apparently not the majority opinion, at least in the academy. The truth is, as The Chronicle of Higher Education has noted in at least two investigative pieces in the last two years or so, plagiarism among the professoriate is not unheard of. I won't say it happens frequently, but it happens often enough that people have begun writing and talking about it in the Chroncle. And the thing is, in most of the cases profiled in previous articles, suspension and termination are not the usual outcomes. The professor is punished for the transgression, certainly, but-- from what I've read-- the punishments are not nearly as draconian as the ones being discussed in Churchill's case.


In my time in academia, I've known of two cases of university professors (one full, one associate) who were found to have engaged in academic misconduct of the sort relevant to this case (plagiarism, misciting data, misciting sources, etc.). Both were fired. I don't know what's the norm, but it's certainly not unusual for staff to be let go for such offenses.

[Calybos]

Brad nailed it. Churchill's actions (lying about past, credentials, plagiarism, etc.) are worthy of firing.

But obviously, his unpopular 9/11 statements were the reason he was investigated. They were looking for some dirt to use against him, and they found it. That's what reprehensible.

Face it: If a random professor who lied about his qualifications was being suspended from a university, would it make national news? Of course not. The reason's it's "news" is because of Churchill's 9/11 comments, and nothing more. It's more Faux News fodder.

[Iangould]

You know that his "lies" are not really lies, right? American cololnials did in fact use small pox (and other germ warfare) back in the days. It's disputed, but's it's not technically false (in fact, there's more evidence to support than deny). These type of tactics date back to Spanish Inquisition (they really did this) and continued over to North AMerica. 50% of the Indian pop were killed, and it wasn't all by knife and bullet.

But according to the sources he quotes to justify specific claims of deliberate smallpox exposure, he distorted and misrepresented their work to justify his position.

Despite being told this, he continued to do so.

[Iangould]

macul, Churchill is one of their own, so there's very little that he could do other than maybe rape then slaughter a baby on camera that would get many of these people to acknowledge what he's done.


Who are you referring to when you say "these people", there are only a couple of people defending Churchill here.

[Iangould]

Hoffmandu is the only one here who has defended Churchill though.

And he is, apparently, a Republican.

[Iangould]

Shit, you're right. Still, his speaking out is the catalyst. It bothers me that if I say something that someone does not agree with they can legally come down on me. That doesn't seem like free speech to me. Lets say, for instance, he did not plagiarize, he did not "lie". Would you still agree with what's happening here? Do you think the university would still pursue termination, because I think they definitely would.

They refused to fire him immediately after the "Little Eichmanns" statement and resisted pressure from state legislators to do so.

It sounds like the matters that DID lead to his dismissal - misrepresentation; falsely claiming Native ancestry; plagiarism - were already being investigated.

But if Fox News hadn't decided to elevate this guy to national prominence as a supposed representative of American academia, nobody off-campus would have cared that he was sacked.

[Iangould]

Having one of their professors become a "celebrity pinhead" on The O'Reilly Factor isn't something that any university would be proud of, and certainly the controversey surrounding the man and his ideas motivated this investigation.

Actually if O'Reilly (or one of his antipodean equivalents like Alan Jones) attacked an Australian academic like that, they'd be lionised by the University community.

[Samurai]

And he is, apparently, a Republican.
... and if you buy that one, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell ya....

[Iangould]

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3145821&postcount=60

Hoffmandu has said explicitly, in this very thread, that he is a Republican.

[K'Nort]

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3145821&postcount=60

Hoofmandu has said explicitly, in this very thread, that he is a Republican.

In fairness, he's also said he's trolling.

[Samurai]

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=3145821&postcount=60

Hoofmandu has said explicitly, in this very thread, that he is a Republican.
Yeah, and Fred Phelps is a Democrat, but y'all keep saying he isn't representative of the party. I can't imagine any real Republican defending Ward Churchill so vehemently, though maybe he's a closet Libertarian...

[Josh S]

I'll chime in with my two cents.

I think what Churchill said was horrible. I also think if he'd never said anything that the university wouldn't be looking for reasons to fire him. But the fact remains HE plagarized and HE made the 9/11 comments. In theory what the university is doing could be constsrued as wrong, but the fact remains he fucked up. Assuming they aren't making shit up then I have no problem with them firing him for plagarism. But I will still think he was fired for his comments and not the comments. And I'm fine with that, becuase even if that is why he was fired he still commented a fireable offense.

[Bradley]

I don't know what's the norm, but it's certainly not unusual for staff to be let go for such offenses.

I guess part of the problem, as I see it, is that there really isn't an agreed-upon "norm" for dealing with this type of misconduct. As I mentioned before, The Chronicle of Higher Education has run a few really detailed pieces about the issue (if you have a subscription, you can go to their online edition and read the "Professor Copycat" articles from December of 2004) that illustrate the fact that, often, exposed frauds don't really face much of a penalty from their institutions.

Like I said, I would be in favor of harsh penalties for professors who are found to have plagiarized or invented data or stolen the research of their graduate students. But more than that, I would like to see people within the profession try to work towards some type of consensus about what the penalties for these infractions should be, and become more consistent in terms of enforcement. Having said that, I'm not really sure how the people within the profession can get together to talk about these issues, but it seems to me that there seems to be a general consensus in terms of other aspects of campus life (zero tolerance for student plagiarists, for example), so I think it probably could be done. Perhaps Ward Churchill's case will mark the beginning of a serious conversation.

Regarding Churchill... Does anyone besides me think that Churchill's greatest "sin" might just be that he's a really bad writer? I've followed his case from the very beginning, and I've often found myself persuaded by some of his arguments... after he explained and clarified what he meant with his essay and his book. As I understand it from subsequent essays and interviews, his main point was not that people in the World Trade Center deserved to die, but that Americans don't understand how they are perceived by certain groups of people in other parts of the world. It's vital that we as Americans try to understand these foreign points-of-view if we want to feel safe again.

So, okay, I can agree with that, when it's phrased like that. But Churchill had to gild the lily by invoking the Holocaust and by employing a self-satisfied, sarcastic diction that was sure to alienate anyone who was not already inclined to agree with his assessment and ideas. Which, as anyone who's taken freshman composition with a competent instructor knows, is not a way to win over a hostile audience, or even a neutral one. The arrogance and crudeness in the essay (and later book) seemed to ensure that no one would ever find Churchill's prose persuasive. So, if he wasn't looking to persuade, why bother writing the piece in the first place?

[Bradley]

Last week Inside Higher Ed published an essay by John K. Wilson that seems relevant to this discussion:

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/05/19/wilson

I found the following passage particularly interesting:

“No one has ever accused Churchill of fabricating data (such as making up historical sources). He is accused of making broad claims, without adequate evidence, which are probably wrong. That is lousy historical research, but it’s not research misconduct by any stretch of the imagination.

“There is some evidence to find Churchill guilty on other charges of ghostwriting and plagiarism. But using footnotes as an excuse to fire Churchill makes the entire committee’s findings look like political expediency to remove an embarrassment to the University of Colorado. By turning every case of bad research into research misconduct, the Colorado committee threatens to expose the entire academic system to a political witch hunt. In an era when the right-wing is already targeting college professors for their extramural statements and political comments in class, this radical revision of research standards could mark the next step in the war on academic freedom.”

[Loren]

Ward Churchill is a complete nobody. He's not claimed by the left nor is he supported by them.

Except, that is, for my Congresswoman. Cynthia McKinney had Churchill as an invited guest and speaker at her Hip-Hop Power Shop (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ga04_mckinney/hhps.html) political rally last week.

[Tom]

Trust that whackadoo to prove me wrong (McKinney, not you, Loren).

[Loren]

Trust that whackadoo to prove me wrong (McKinney, not you, Loren).

You weren't wrong. You were right in saying that the Left, as a whole, won't touch Churchill with a 10-foot pole. Virtually no one even wants to be associated with the guy.

So it says a lot more about McKinney that she's not only willing to associate herself with him, but to go so far as to use him as part of her campaign.

[Drew Van T.]

It's vital that we as Americans try to understand these foreign points-of-view if we want to feel safe again.

Exactly.

http://www.pvponline.com/archive/2006/pvp20060428.gif

[spoon_jenkins]

Plagiarism and fabrication are cardinal sins for an academic. It's perfectly reasonable to fire a professor for that.

Amen to phoenixrising, Tom, Adam Crocker who point out that Churchill was a marginal nobody and pointing out the pathetic fallacy of trying to portray him as someone of significance in liberal circles. I had never heard of the man at all before the controversy.

I find extremely ironic that thus far (although it may change), Churchill has generated more attention with his comments calling the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" than Ann Coulter has for saying 9/11 widows were enjoying their husbands deaths even though Coulter is thousands of times bigger than Churchill. Coulter's probably in the top 5 conservative pundits (in terms of following, sales, media attention, etc.) in the U.S.

[Loren]

I find extremely ironic that thus far (although it may change), Churchill has generated more attention with his comments calling the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" than Ann Coulter has for saying 9/11 widows were enjoying their husbands deaths even though Coulter is thousands of times bigger than Churchill.

Some points of consideration for that comparison:

1) While Coulter's comments are undoubtedly inflammatory, I'd argue that comparing the 9/11 victims to Nazis was a wee bit moreso. Plus, "little Eichmanns" makes for a much better soundbite than Coulter's material.

2) In the week or so since Coulter's comments were made public, she *has* generated an awful lot of attention. I think it's too early to say who got more, since much of what made the Churchill controversy memorable was the length of time it went on.

3) This might not make much difference, but the reaction to Coulter has come pretty much immediately. Last year's hubbub over Churchill dated back to an essay he wrote in 2001. It took 4 years for his comments to get the attention they did.

[spoon_jenkins]

Some points of consideration for that comparison:

1) While Coulter's comments are undoubtedly inflammatory, I'd argue that comparing the 9/11 victims to Nazis was a wee bit moreso. Plus, "little Eichmanns" makes for a much better soundbite than Coulter's material.

2) In the week or so since Coulter's comments were made public, she *has* generated an awful lot of attention. I think it's too early to say who got more, since much of what made the Churchill controversy memorable was the length of time it went on.

3) This might not make much difference, but the reaction to Coulter has come pretty much immediately. Last year's hubbub over Churchill dated back to an essay he wrote in 2001. It took 4 years for his comments to get the attention they did.
Yeah, I agree with #1 and #2 (although I do think a greater of extent of Coulter attention relative to Churchill attention just reporting that she said it rather than criticism).

I think #3 really serves my point. Of course, people didn't react to Churchill because he was a nobody. It was a tree falling in the forest that nobody was there to hear. That's what makes past suggestions by some conservatives of Churchill being representative of the left so ridiculous to me.

[Adam Crocker]

2) In the week or so since Coulter's comments were made public, she *has* generated an awful lot of attention. I think it's too early to say who got more, since much of what made the Churchill controversy memorable was the length of time it went on.

I agree. Coulter has gotten plenty of attention for her remarks, which is probably about as much as Churchill if not moreso. I suppose the main difference though is that she stands to make a lot more money off this since she's made a career out of it.

[Iangould]

Some points of consideration for that comparison:

1) While Coulter's comments are undoubtedly inflammatory, I'd argue that comparing the 9/11 victims to Nazis was a wee bit moreso. Plus, "little Eichmanns" makes for a much better soundbite than Coulter's material.

2) In the week or so since Coulter's comments were made public, she *has* generated an awful lot of attention. I think it's too early to say who got more, since much of what made the Churchill controversy memorable was the length of time it went on.

3) This might not make much difference, but the reaction to Coulter has come pretty much immediately. Last year's hubbub over Churchill dated back to an essay he wrote in 2001. It took 4 years for his comments to get the attention they did.

4. Ann Coulter has not, apparently, violated any published code of ethics produced by any of her employers/publishers and in the case of "Godless" her statements were obviously known in advance by her publisher.

[Bradley]

Plagiarism and fabrication are cardinal sins for an academic. It's perfectly reasonable to fire a professor for that.

I'm inclined to agree with you in theory, but as I mentioned before, most institutions seem to evaluate issues of research misconduct on a case-by-case basis. It seems to me that Churchill is accused, primarily, of shoddy documentation of his research-- what this boils down to, if I understand the report, is that Churchill was rather vague in his footnotes, so that credit wasn't necessarily given when credit was due and so that his reader might feel misled towards a foregone conclusion.

(Full disclosure-- I couldn't bring myself to read the entire 125 page report. I just skimmed the conclusions. So if you know more about this than I do, I apologize in advance for any ignorance on my part).

Don't get me wrong-- that's bad research and bad writing, and I don't think professors should be able to get away with turning in half-assed work. However, I think it's important to remember that we're talking about refereed articles in academic journals and presses, evaluated by others in his field. I find it suspicious that, it seems, no one had a problem with his scholarship prior to his controversial remarks.

Amen to phoenixrising, Tom, Adam Crocker who point out that Churchill was a marginal nobody and pointing out the pathetic fallacy of trying to portray him as someone of significance in liberal circles. I had never heard of the man at all before the controversy.

I agree that suggesting that Ward Churchill is articulating "the liberal point-of-view" is wrong, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say he was "a marginal nobody." He must have had some sort of a reputation, in order to receive a job with tenure, despite the fact that he hadn't completed his dissertation. The University of Colorado must have thought that he was important enough in his field to give him such an awesome job.

I find extremely ironic that thus far (although it may change), Churchill has generated more attention with his comments calling the 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" than Ann Coulter has for saying 9/11 widows were enjoying their husbands deaths even though Coulter is thousands of times bigger than Churchill. Coulter's probably in the top 5 conservative pundits (in terms of following, sales, media attention, etc.) in the U.S.

Well, I think it's important to remember that Churchill faced some very organized opposition, which Coulter has not. Churchill was already famous in his community for his activism and protests, and had already irritated some voices in local conservative talk radio, if memory serves. So some radio personalities began their "investigation" into his work, found the offending essay, and successfully turned it into a national news story. It didn't hurt that, at around this time, forces opposed to tenure and academic freedom began gaining strength and notoriety; there's really no reason for most of us to know anything about Ward Churchill or his work-- he simply managed to enrage a few people in Colorado with an anti- Columbus Day demonstration. But once those people were able to describe him as an example of "liberal academic lunacy," people like David Horowitz, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity found him useful for their own attacks against the academy.

Coulter, on the other hand, has a huge fan base and lots of friends in the media. As others have pointed out, the fallout from Coulter's comments still hasn't been measured-- she could wind up more villified than Churchill, certainly. But I doubt she will. What my liberal brethren seem to forget in all of their "outrage" over these recent comments is that this is just another example of Ann being Ann. This is what she does for a living-- say outrageously hateful, stupid things, and then claim that the PC Police are trying to silence her when she gets criticized for it. So, yeah, while some people may be shocked, I think many more of us are just shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Well, yeah-- of course she hates 9/11 widows. Why wouldn't she?"

[Bradley]

1) While Coulter's comments are undoubtedly inflammatory, I'd argue that comparing the 9/11 victims to Nazis was a wee bit moreso. Plus, "little Eichmanns" makes for a much better soundbite than Coulter's material.

I disagree. While I think that Churchill's comments were insensitive, tacky, poorly-phrased, and-- yes-- offensive, I don't think they come close to Coulter's attack.

Churchill has never actually celebrated violence against Americans and-- contrary to what many believe-- did not compare all of the victims of the terrorist attacks to Nazis. He endeavored to understand the terrorist's point-of-view, and suggested that-- for them-- America was a land of exploitation and brutality. From their point-of-view, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acceptable military targets, as many people who worked in both buildings were agents of that exploitation and brutality-- "Little Eichmanns" who didn't kill anyone themselves, but whose participation in a corrupt system enabled exploitation and brutality.

To be perfectly clear-- I completely disagree with that point-of-view, and I don't think Churchill argues his point convincingly at all. But, I think, when you consider the quote in its context, its much, much less offensive than Coulter's remarks about the 9/11 widows, which were written for the express purpose of pouring salt into the wounds of women who have already suffered more than anyone should.

[Iangould]

I'm inclined to agree with you in theory, but as I mentioned before, most institutions seem to evaluate issues of research misconduct on a case-by-case basis. It seems to me that Churchill is accused, primarily, of shoddy documentation of his research-- what this boils down to, if I understand the report, is that Churchill was rather vague in his footnotes, so that credit wasn't necessarily given when credit was due and so that his reader might feel misled towards a foregone conclusion.

Falsely claiming to be of Native American ancestry and plagiarising artwork is enough, in my opinion, to justify dismissing him as a Native American Studies professor since he's unlikely to be able to work productively with Native Americans after demonstratign his disrespect for their culture.

The plagiarism comes into play here because indigenous cultures attach great signficance to knowledge of particular rituals and customs, the artwork Churchill plagiarised was by a non-indigenous artist but many indigenous artists and guiardians of traditional knowledge would refuse to work with him as a result (at least based on my experiences here in Australia.)

If he were, say, an accounting Professor, those actions would make him a simple sleazebag. Given his field of study they make him a sleazebag who's incapable of doing his job adequately.

[spoon_jenkins]

I agree that suggesting that Ward Churchill is articulating "the liberal point-of-view" is wrong, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say he was "a marginal nobody." He must have had some sort of a reputation, in order to receive a job with tenure, despite the fact that he hadn't completed his dissertation. The University of Colorado must have thought that he was important enough in his field to give him such an awesome job.
Let me clarify. I don't use the phrase "marginal nobody" to mean that Churchill was a convenience store clerk with a political blog. Yeah, he's a tenured college professor, but he wasn't anything beyond that. He wasn't some political titan or someone garnering mainstream attention (before the controversy). He wasn't one of those celebrity academics. I haven't heard about the ethnic studies dept. at UC-Boulder being particularly notable (although I know it's good for physics). I'd never heard of him before. I've never met anyone (at least IRL) who had heard of him before the controversy. So within the field of American political/social discourse, I don't think he was a notable guy before the controversy.

[Bradley]

I'm inclined to agree with you in theory, but as I mentioned before, most institutions seem to evaluate issues of research misconduct on a case-by-case basis. It seems to me that Churchill is accused, primarily, of shoddy documentation of his research-- what this boils down to, if I understand the report, is that Churchill was rather vague in his footnotes, so that credit wasn't necessarily given when credit was due and so that his reader might feel misled towards a foregone conclusion.

Falsely claiming to be of Native American ancestry and plagiarising artwork is enough, in my opinion, to justify dismissing him as a Native American Studies professor since he's unlikely to be able to work productively with Native Americans after demonstratign his disrespect for their culture.

The plagiarism comes into play here because indigenous cultures attach great signficance to knowledge of particular rituals and customs, the artwork Churchill plagiarised was by a non-indigenous artist but many indigenous artists and guiardians of traditional knowledge would refuse to work with him as a result (at least based on my experiences here in Australia.)

If he were, say, an accounting Professor, those actions would make him a simple sleazebag. Given his field of study they make him a sleazebag who's incapable of doing his job adequately.


Again, I may be ignorant, but I didn't read any of those concerns in the conclusion to the report. He falsely claimed to have Native American ancestry? That's been proven? Again, it doesn't come up in the investigators' conclusion, so it seems immaterial to the discussion at hand. The bigger concern, it seems to me, is that his shoddy research hurts both his field and his institution.

The University of Colorado has some pretty strict standards when it comes to revoking tenure:

"A faculty member may be dismissed when, in the judgment of the Board of Regents and subject to the Board of Regents’ constitutional and statutory authority, the good of the university requires such action. The grounds for dismissal shall be demonstrable professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude upon a plea or verdict of guilty or following a plea of nolo contendere, or sexual harassment or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."

One member of the committee concluded that Churchill should be fired, three felt that the University might be able to fire him, and one thought that the University could not fire him. My sense is that the grounds for dismissal in this case would be "demonstrable professional incompetence"-- by all accounts he's a good teacher with an impressive service record who hasn't been convicted of a crime. But I'm just not sure the case could be made that his "incompetence" is "demonstrable." He's certainly made some big mistakes, but I tend to think that if his research and methods were really as horrible as people are claiming, he wouldn't have been able to publish his work in the first place. It seems to me that poor scholarship should be recognized not by politicians or investigative committees, but by journal editors, fellow scholars in one's field, and publishers of academic presses. The fact that he is such a prolific author in his field indicates to me that no one really had a problem with his work until he become a Fox News supervillain for his political convictions.

[Bradley]

Let me clarify. I don't use the phrase "marginal nobody" to mean that Churchill was a convenience store clerk with a political blog. Yeah, he's a tenured college professor, but he wasn't anything beyond that. He wasn't some political titan or someone garnering mainstream attention (before the controversy). He wasn't one of those celebrity academics. I haven't heard about the ethnic studies dept. at UC-Boulder being particularly notable (although I know it's good for physics). I'd never heard of him before. I've never met anyone (at least IRL) who had heard of him before the controversy. So within the field of American political/social discourse, I don't think he was a notable guy before the controversy.

I understand. The only reason I was looking for clarification is because I tend to think that the University of Colorado kind of created this situation when they hired him-- with tenure, without a Ph.D. in hand. From what I've read, it seems like the officials at the University thought that Churchill's "celebrity" within his field would be good for the Native American Studies Department; he apparently already had a reputation as a controversial, outspoken figure-- the hope was that he'd bring attention to the department and the school.

Careful what you wish for...

[Adam Crocker]

Amen to phoenixrising, Tom, Adam Crocker who point out that Churchill was a marginal nobody and pointing out the pathetic fallacy of trying to portray him as someone of significance in liberal circles.

Actually I never did do that. I merely stated I hadn't read his work before this but had seen his books, as well as spoken word CDs, around. He definitely wasn't as prominent as Noam Chomsky and is much more well known after this than he had ever been his career, but he wasn't quite a nobody. He had at least some level of fame for his activism and extensive writings on Native Americans among lefties, and least enough to get tenure at the University of Colorado despite lacking the qualifications commonly expected of employees at that institution.


So, yeah, while some people may be shocked, I think many more of us are just shrugging our shoulders and saying, "Well, yeah-- of course she hates 9/11 widows. Why wouldn't she?"

Well I'm not shocked, but I doubt she necessarily "hates" them. As Tages has pointed out, she apparently is less vitrolic, and even stutters, while appearing on TV and is friends with humourist Bill Maher. And as
Andrew Sullivan learned (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/06/cracking_the_da.html) she can be very nice and personable in real life, all of which suggests that she doesn't so much "hate" the group of widows in question as she regards them as a convenient target for her attacks.

[Loren]

Churchill has never actually celebrated violence against Americans and-- contrary to what many believe-- did not compare all of the victims of the terrorist attacks to Nazis. He endeavored to understand the terrorist's point-of-view, and suggested that-- for them-- America was a land of exploitation and brutality. From their point-of-view, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were acceptable military targets, as many people who worked in both buildings were agents of that exploitation and brutality-- "Little Eichmanns" who didn't kill anyone themselves, but whose participation in a corrupt system enabled exploitation and brutality.

Except that Eichmann wasn't someone who was merely a low-level player in the Nazi agenda. His actions went far beyond "participation in a corrupt system," because he was the actor who actually planned, organized, and ordered the crimes that others carried out. He didn't enable brutality; he was the mastermind behind the greatest of the Nazi brutalities.

[Loren]

Well I'm not shocked, but I doubt she necessarily "hates" them. As Tages has pointed out, she apparently is less vitrolic, and even stutters, while appearing on TV and is friends with humourist Bill Maher. And as
Andrew Sullivan learned (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/06/cracking_the_da.html) she can be very nice and personable in real life, all of which suggests that she doesn't so much "hate" the group of widows in question as she regards them as a convenient target for her attacks.

I'm all but convinced that "Ann Coulter" is more or less a character played by Ms. Coulter, not unlike how "Stephen Colbert" is a character. She intentionally makes controversial and inflammatory statements on purpose, because it wins her a loyal fanbase from one group of people and turns another group of people into a pro bono publicity engine when they react. The result is that she ends up famous and sells a lot of books. It's a method that's served her phenomenally well.

[Bradley]

Except that Eichmann wasn't someone who was merely a low-level player in the Nazi agenda. His actions went far beyond "participation in a corrupt system," because he was the actor who actually planned, organized, and ordered the crimes that others carried out. He didn't enable brutality; he was the mastermind behind the greatest of the Nazi brutalities.

You're right, of course; I didn't do such a great job of summarizing Churchill's argument. I apologize.

The important fact, though, is that Churchill didn't say that everyone killed on September 11th was a "little Eichmann," although it seems like a lot of people think he did. What he did say was that, from the terrorist's point-of-view, the attacks were about targetting the "Little Eichmanns" who "planned, organized and ordered the crimes that others carried out," and who would have worked in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

To be honest, I haven't read the entire essay. As I said, though I can agree that it's valuable to try to see ourselves from the point-of-view of those who hate us, I think Churchill's argument is unconvincing and his writing is just plain bad-- too smug and self-satisfied, too eager to be "shocking," to ever be persuasive. But at the same time, I do find it more persuasive than a lot of the nonsense that was being written and said aloud immediately following the attacks-- remember Dan Rather on David Letterman, suggesting that the attacks had no motive, asking, "Who can understand evil?" Or the conventional wisdom that said we were attacked because "They hate our freedom"? I had a student tell me that the appropriate response was to "turn the desert into glass"; Ann Coulter suggested invading every Muslim country on earth, killing their leaders, and forcing the survivors to convert to Christianity. Later, Toby Keith and Darryl Worley released songs with jingoistic and reductive lyrics-- in Worley's case, suggesting that Saddam Hussein orchestrated the attacks. So a lot of people have said a lot of stupid things about September 11th.

I think it's totally rational to be offended by Churchill invoking Nazi Germany in his meditation on why some people hate Americans. Even at its most exploitive and abusive, I do not think that American foreign and economic policies can be compared to the deliberate, premediated mass murder of six million people. But I think the way some people (please note that I'm not talking about people in this discussion, but in the media) have deliberately misrepresented what he said to make it sound even worse is destructive and dishonest. And I think the idea-- articulated by some (though, again, not in this discussion)-- that he should be stripped of his tenure and fired for expressing an unpopular political belief is frightening. The best-- and most effective and constructive-- way to deal with this issue is to do what we're doing now-- engaged his ideas honestly, and point out-- logically-- where Churchill gets it wrong.

(I hope I don't sound like a jerk in this exchange-- it's a very sensitive subject, obviously, and I feel strongly about it. But I hope that when I say things like "some people" no one posting in this thread thinks I'm talking about them).

[Bradley]

I'm all but convinced that "Ann Coulter" is more or less a character played by Ms. Coulter, not unlike how "Stephen Colbert" is a character. She intentionally makes controversial and inflammatory statements on purpose, because it wins her a loyal fanbase from one group of people and turns another group of people into a pro bono publicity engine when they react. The result is that she ends up famous and sells a lot of books. It's a method that's served her phenomenally well.

I don't know which would bother me more-- the idea that someone can actually be as mean and hateful as Coulter appears to be, or the idea that someone would pretend to be that mean and hateful in order to make a lot of money from a mean and hateful public.

I kind of find myself hoping for the former, but suspecting that you're right.

[Iangould]

Again, I may be ignorant, but I didn't read any of those concerns in the conclusion to the report. He falsely claimed to have Native American ancestry? That's been proven? Again, it doesn't come up in the investigators' conclusion, so it seems immaterial to the discussion at hand. The bigger concern, it seems to me, is that his shoddy research hurts both his field and his institution.

Wikipedia seems to be down at the moment but check their article on Churchill.

He has repeatedly made claims to be a member of a specific Sioux band on the basis of descent as well as more general claims of indigenous descent. In fact, the band in question made him an honorary member for his ethnogrpahic work. Honorary membership does not impart any fo the legal or traditional rights blood kinship would. Research doesn't turn up any genelogical evidence of indigneous ancestry and other members of his family have specifically denied it.

You mgiht also want to read the summary of that report in more detail, Churchill's academic misconduct wasn't simply "Churchill was rather vague in his footnotes, so that credit wasn't necessarily given when credit was due and so that his reader might feel misled towards a foregone conclusion". Churchill deliberately quoted sources out of context and partially so they appeared to support his position even though having read the articles in question he must have known they actually did not when read in their entirity.

[spoon_jenkins]

Actually I never did do that. I merely stated I hadn't read his work before this but had seen his books, as well as spoken word CDs, around.
D'oh. I think what I was actually thinking of was when you said almost no one on the thread was supporting him. I was trying to recall which posters punched holes in the idea that he was some leader on the left, and I guess I mistakenly lumped you into the wrong place. Sorry if I mischaracterized your sentiments.

[spoon_jenkins]

I'm all but convinced that "Ann Coulter" is more or less a character played by Ms. Coulter, not unlike how "Stephen Colbert" is a character. She intentionally makes controversial and inflammatory statements on purpose, because it wins her a loyal fanbase from one group of people and turns another group of people into a pro bono publicity engine when they react. The result is that she ends up famous and sells a lot of books. It's a method that's served her phenomenally well.
I strongly disagree with your assessment. I don't think Coulter is playing a character. In addition, if we assume for the sake of argument that she is, that isn't a valid defense for her conduct.

First of all, Colbert is a liberal playing a conservative character, which garners him a big liberal following. According to you, Coulter is playing a conservative character yet she has a huge conservative following. She not seen as ridiculed the set of views she spouts but celebrating them. It's the same thing with Limbaugh. Coulter and Limbaugh fans that I've heard from don't say that they're silly goofballs. They remark how they agree with them (or at least a lot of what they say). How is it a character when the fans get into the same angry lather as the character they're supposedly laughing about.

Furthermore, Coulter has shown herself to be a conservative from her upbringing to her education to her employment.

I don't think it's at all sensible to assume that he rhetoric is an act because it seems beyond the pale. I've met tons of conservatives who in total seriousness advocate the deaths of innocent people and insist their ideological opponents are complete scum. I'be heard many conservatives say that people who try to cross the border with Mexico illegally should be shot to kill on sight. I've heard plenty of conservatives say that liberals should be tried for treason in all seriousness. I had a driver's ed teacher (during the Cedras regime in Haiti) remark that the Coast Guard should fire on the boats of Haitian refugees to sink and kill. And it was totally consistent with his character as I knew him that he would think they were criminal dirtbags because they dare to be poor, black, foreign and seeking refuge. And this guy was celebrated because he was a good swimming coach.

So I have trouble believing that a conservative pundit could actually be like that.

Furthermore, if the public believes and treats Coulter's alleged character like the general article then how is it an excuse? It seems to me that you're saying that it's okay if Coulter launches hateful diatribes sometimes urging violence because she internally does not hold those beliefs. This, in spite of the fact that people treat the "character" as the genuine article and believe in what's espoused by the "character." It seems ridiculous to me to discount the spirit that Coulter evokes in millions of people because the woman's internal mental state is different.