home

Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Jun 04, 2005 at 09:15:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

While the University of Colorado decides the career fate of embattled Ethnic Studies Professor Ward Churchill, the Rocky Mountain News has spent the past two months unearthing every possible fact, rumor and innuendo about the Professor. Beginning today, having played Inquisitor, Judge and Jury, without benefit of cross-examination by Churchill, they are presenting their findings in a five part series. Part One of the five part series is online here. The tag to the headline of the paper edition reads :

A News investigation of the charges before a CU panel reveals strong evidence of possible misconduct by the professor. (our emphasis.)

Shorter version: We think he lied his a** off, but we can't prove it and we don't want to be sued by his lawyer, David Lane.

Today's articles examine the "Eichman" statement. Tomorrow's issue:

Did Ward Churchill falsely accuse the U.S. Army of using smallpox as a weapon of genocide against American Indians? Our findings: His claim cannot be supported by the sources he has cited.

So, is that a yes or a no? Or another "We think so, but we can't prove it." Here's what's planned the rest of the week.

  • At issue
    Did Churchill commit plagiarism by publishing the work of others as his own? Our findings: An essay he "prepared" for a book was actually taken from a Canadian scholar.Coming Tuesday
  • At issue
    Did Churchill mischaracterize two important pieces of federal Indian law? Our findings: His contentions about the Dawes Act of 1887 and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 are incorrect. Coming Wednesday
  • At issue
    Did Churchill misrepresent himself as having American Indian ancestry? Our findings: His assertions that he is descended from Cherokee and Creek ancestors aren’t supported by extensive genealogical records. Coming Thursday

The coverage is excessive. The only real issue of interest should be the academic freedom issue. But this will feed the local talk shows and O'Reilly for a full week, and bring the paper lots of publicity.

Update: Sean Paul at Agonist has some observations.

< Scrushy Jury May Deadlock | AI Responds, Senate to Hold Hearings on Detainees >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media | 32 comments (32 topical)
    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    Regardless of Left or Right spin, this is just another clear sign of the death of investigative journalism in this country, a death knell that was started years ago with the Food Lion verdict.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    TL - Thanks. I'll be sure and get the Rocky up on the net.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    Nothing like a good smear campaign against a dissenting voice. Ahhh yes....retro-journalism continues full speed backward. Welcome to 1955.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#4)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    Try as I might, I just don't care. Don't Falwell and Robertson compare gays to hitler on a weekly basis?

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    Actually, though I continue to support Churchill's rights in the face of an obvious scapegoating to distract attention from the ACTUAL CRIMES piled a hundred deep from the Bushliar administration, I have reviewed this latest book by Churchill, and it is chock full of propaganda. Hardly what I was expecting from the professor, but quite in line with Howard Zinn's propaganda (though less intellectually sound than Zinn's, which is hard work). Churchill puts a lot of energy into innuendo. For instance, in his chronology of American militarism, he refers to a military expedition into indian country in the early 1800s. But since he coyly doesn't say what he's talking about, you have to have the background knowledge to see that he is referring to the Lewis & Clark expedition, which indeed was a 'military expedition,' but hardly a hostile one. There are many such examples of willful distortion. While I'm sympathetic with many of his points -- and certainly agree that the modern US tyranny and antidemocratic action (and genocide) in many theaters is utterly unacceptable, retrogressive, corporate-imperialism and RACISM -- he doesn't do the cause much of a favor, because many of his readers will come away with his primary false conclusion: namely that the US has been consistently a force of evil in the world, as a result of some sort of innate American-evilness. He is, in a phrase, carrying that large chip on the shoulder that Jim claims, wrongly, us liberals have (compare this chip we don't have, with his utter lack of criticism of his own party's actions, many of which have abetted TREASON, and it is clear who is wearing the chip -- in his brain, or facsimile thereof).

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#6)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    You know, I watched Chomsky repeat much of Churchill’s sentiment on a few networks and several CSPAN covered events. Churchill’s problem is that he is a third rate academic and a fraud; he is very easy to dislike on both counts. Chomsky, an authentic intellect, finds himself in a very different position. UC is embarrassed, they hired and further granting tenure to this clown based on a general desire to further diversity and in the process shortchanging merit. I can kind of see their position; it looks very good for them if he tows the line. And it’s not like any bridges are going to collapse; he’s not teaching civil engineering. Time to take their medicine. They granted this joker a lifetime position and I don’t see how they can go back on that just because he published a bunch of racist garbage.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#7)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    I think CU ought to keep Churchill. He's their guy. They got all warm and fuzzy thinking about it. Now, of course, if he's done something which is not legally acceptable, then he ought to go. But CU should keep him as a penance. Every year he's there, the alumni will be sending their money elsewhere. Let the admin enjoy the fruits of their pc-ism, and multicult-ism, and their frisson at shoving Whitey Churchill up the noses of the conservatives. You got him, guys. Keep him and enjoy him.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#8)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    Not that Chomsky is the right's favorite character... But you're correct. The most salient quote in the Rocky was from another scholar who basically said that the real history is horrifying enough--what's the point of making stuff up? My basic take on the Rocky piece is that it is a waste of time. The public would benefit a lot more if they spent 5 days reporting on something really interesting, such as the Bush propaganda machine, or the religious nuts in Colorado Springs. Churchill is a molecule in the news universe, but they're treating him as if he were a galaxy. And the screaming heads on talk radio and Fox are doing a fine job of character assassination (deserved or not) without the Rocky's help.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#9)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    I think CU will have a hard time making the plagiarism case. He doesn't publish scholarly material, and thus doesn't go through peer review--a process that not only makes sure a writer isn't full of crap, but that he or she also properly cites sources. Churchill could likely make a strong case that his material shouldn't be held to the same standard as that of other professors because his writing isn't academic, and therefore doesn't get the editorial scrutiny that academic writing does.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    namely that the US has been consistently a force of evil in the world, as a result of some sort of innate American-evilness.
    and
    (large chip on the shoulder that) wrongly, us liberals have
    Anyone critical of American culture has a chip on their shoulder, is that it? That sounds like a tactic. In effect, Paul, what you're implying is that our nation's actions are only evil when those you don't approve of are in power. That doesn't do much to aid progressive principles either - it's zero sum rhetoric - the blue vs. red football game. Our society has its share of selfish intent and action towards other societies just as other societies have theirs. We haven't been the force for good in the world that others have made us out to be -- and I have a hard time criticizing Chomsky for pointing out our failings in the world since so few Americans ever stop to even consider the validity of the question. Possibly because they fear being accused of having a chip on their shoulder and then having all subsequent opinions marginalized. That's the view from my sedan chair, anyway. The one time I heard Churchill speak was on the Internet in a clip from the Bill Maher show. He did a woeful job explaining his viewpoint - and perhaps he isn't educated well enough to think logically / make a convincing argument. His book is probably an effort to cash in from his media demonization (as so many have done). It was back at that time that I commented here that I wouldn't be surprised if he weren't an ignorant patsy used to discredit the left-left. Why interview Chomsky who is just going to piss people off by rattling off a half dozen obscure U.S. actions that were ethically questionable in Central America that nobody cares about when we can interview someone that the common American can feel superior to? Chomsky is a linguist and has written some of the most logical explanations of the methods used by *forces* within our society to destroy our language to acheive their goals. A comparison of Churchill (the media creation) to Chomsky would be akin to an effort made to compare Ann Coulter to Milton Friedman: intellectually absurd.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    TS: "Anyone critical of American culture has a chip on their shoulder, is that it?" That is Jim's perspective, clearly. It's also the standard posture of fascism, namely 'obey' since the fascist idea of personal freedom is that it has no meaning outside it's expression of nationalism. Add racism, and you have Jim's mix, which on the can says 'Nazism,' though he doesn't use it full-strength. He doesn't mix it very much because he's afraid of it, and rightly so, but the government he tirelessly supports (for pay?) is NOT of the people. It is a fascist coup, which abrogated the Constitution and their pledges to uphold it. And that abrogation of democracy is the same with Hitler, Mussolini, and other fascists, in the hyper-nationalism of that anti-American dogma. No, TS, I'm specifically criticising Churchill's book, the method of it. On a creative scale, judge for yourself, treat it as literature of a sort. But as scholarly material, the ARGUMENT of the book is damaged by WC's rhetoric, which exaggerates and hyper-personalizes the harm done HISTORICALLY by the United States. There are no wars or genocides before the diseased Europeans brought them over. As with most of the rest of the country, I believe that America EVOLVES. Fascism is not America, so it cannot evolve as America evolves. If it doesn't kill us, we will develop antibodies -- there is hope. Fascism is not democracy. It is SPECIFICALLY opposed to free individual will or freedom, promulgating instead the demand of obedience to the fascist elite. But only through INDIVIDUAL freedom is America what it is in spirit -- all the lesser cans of fish with that label are factions. In many of these supposedly-American cases, it is a handful of people pushing these policies that DISFIGURE this sacred and beautiful land. WC's argument is framed in a compressed and leveled present case -- in the canard that all those deaths are somehow accumulated as a present proof against the validity of America, and as if all actions were taken 'today,' as we are today. That is a very weak form of history, for sure.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    I'll give another example. In service to his militancy, WC says that the Seattle WTO protests a few years ago were sold out by the nonviolent protesters, who consented as part of their agreement not to disrupt the violent state (and its various elements), to guard shopwindows from the anarchists. This agreement to augment the police shows, according to WC, that the protest movement in America is co-opted. That's a ridiculous charge, and almost anyone realizes that if the black bandanna gangs busted EVERY shop window in downtown Seattle, it would not stop the WTO. So WC is attacking people who are working within the political system NONVIOLENTLY because that's compromise with the violent state. That's a leftist view, and he's welcome to it. It is not the view of just about every protester I know, and I know hundreds, from all over. Besides the label of 'leftist,' it is also a position opposed to constructivism -- seeing it as puerile and naive. And I'm a proud Jeffersonian -- and Jefferson was absolutely commited to constructivism -- to making the world a better place through incremental action.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#13)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    That is Jim's perspective, clearly. It's also the standard posture of fascism, namely 'obey' since the fascist idea of personal freedom is that it has no meaning outside it's expression of nationalism. Add racism, and you have Jim's mix, which on the can says 'Nazism,' though he doesn't use it full-strength. He doesn't mix it very much because he's afraid of it, and rightly so, but the government he tirelessly supports (for pay?) is NOT of the people. It is a fascist coup, which abrogated the Constitution and their pledges to uphold it.
    I love it. Up to this point, I haven't made a comment on this thread, yet here I have two Lefties arguing over what they want me to have said. I mean speaking of hijacking threads, this tactic takes the cake. I'll only note that PIL's comments, are just personal attacks, which he will launch against anyone he thinks disagrees with his position. TS should understand this. PIL is, as usual, wrong and full of BS. I only hope that when he grows out of his teen years that reality doesn't take to big of a chunk out of his ever so tender ego. And really PIL, to be mentioned along with Chomsky... I don't know whether that is a compliment or the worst insult I have ever had. I'm leaning towards insult. et al - The issue of Churchill has nothing to do with freedom of speech. He obviously has that, and I so commented in the first round. The issue is, do the employers of Ward Churchill have the right to demand certain things. My view is that the taxpayers of Colorado, who are the real employers, have that right. (The Regents, adminm, etc., are merely agents acting for the taxpayers.) To further that view there is an employment contract that clearly spells out reasons for dismissal. In my view Churchill has met those goals. And although I find RA's use of him as an albatross around CU's collective Left Wing neck very attractive, the resources he represents should be used for better purposes.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#14)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    Jim. I appreciate your comment about my solution. However, I must say that you're taking the short view. The resources expended on keeping this moron around will be recouped many times in the ed biz as a lesson in what happens when a college hires a clown as an exercise in self-gratification. Presuming that lefty educrats are capable of learning. Hmm. Hadn't thought of that.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    I read the RMN article last night and it seemed less of a smear job than a recitation of the charges against Ward "Iron Eyes" Churchill* and quite frankly the assertions were quite damning. Overall this guy is a disgrace to academia not only because of his plagerism but also because he is an inarticulate bonehead. His refusal to answer even the most direct questions about his past such as his "native american" ancestry seem to fall on that 5th amendment self incrimination thingy. Free speech? I'm all for it, let the guy blather on with his America-loathing idiocy because the longer he speaks the more ridiculous he becomes and in one way he becomes the flame that attracts the moths of like minded fools. Keep it up professor you're showing the world where the loons are. *Chief Iron Eyes Cody was the crying Indian in the old pollution ads thirty years ago. Unfortunatly he was Italian American not American Indian. Sort of like old Ward.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    What's wrong with the left in America? Well gee, right here we've got a group of self proclaimed lefties who are playing into the hand of the right wing attack machine. I had to ask myself if some of these comments were plants from the flag waving, dissent hating propaganda mill lead by people like Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Rielly. Maybe some of you need to read a little bit more and do some research before yapping off about Churchill. If you did that, you might find your opinion on Churchill to be a little bit differant or you might find you're just closet right wingers who like to attack someone just because they show more insight and intelligence than some of you. How do you expect us to fight the right when some of you fight for them?

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#17)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    “Maybe some of you need to read a little bit more and do some research before yapping off about Churchill” Immediately after Churchill’s most inflammatory comments gained traction in the mainstream press I looked into Churchill’s publication record and academic pedigree. And I reiterate; third rate academic and [self professed] fraud.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    pigwiggle, In your first post you claimed "UC is embarrassed they hired ...", and now you reply to me by saying that you researched W.C.'s work. First, it's C.U., not "UC", so how did you find his public record at an institution that doesn't exist? Also, you mentioned earlier that Chomsky repeated much of the same sentiment, so why was it ok coming from Chomsky but not Churchill? Red skin maybe? You talk of his racism , but I consider your comments to have the true racist sentiments. I share Churchill's heritage, and take offense with your characterizations of him. He knows how to do reseach; maybe you could learn from him.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    fatalbert, some commenters on talkleft are not lefties, but real conservatives. TalkLeft does not share their views. Feel free to disagree with them, the more left commenters here the better. If they get too much, just ignore them.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    I get the feeling that Churchill was dragged kicking and screaming into the spotlight, but the attempts he has made to convey his message willingly haven't been very logical or well presented. In this case, the media didn't seem to have to work very hard to discredit him -- he did enough damage to his message himself. To say that even any significant number of people working at the World Trade Center were working with an intent to oppress foreign citizens reveals a lack of understanding of the problems intrinsic to our nation's imperial tendencies. Bush isn't even a third rate Caesar - and Corporatist and Social Conservative culture doesn't have the ability (even still) to affect the world in the contrived/organized/collusionary manner that Churchill suggests - but I will say that every day they are allowed to control our federal, state, county, and city governments they get better at acting as one - dismantling the checks and balances to their power as they go. That is a status quo that must be changed ASAP. Those few "imperial tendencies" our nation has are capitalized upon by a small group of powerful interests in D.C. It is the majority constituent values system - the bigotry, apathy, and unfocused greed - of the average materialst that provides the opportunity for these handful of intentionally unethical people to act with impunity. If you worked for Enron, you helped in a very small way to defraud investors. You had no intent to do so, but you helped bring it about. You shouldn't be held individually accountable, but therein lies the dissociation of responsibility that is the inherent evil allowed by our legal system and our State-level corporate charters. You were just trying to feed your family, but your employer was working with an intent to defraud others. There are companies - companies that don't have the same level of notoriety as an Enron - that do far more tangible damage to others - other Americans and the citizens of other nations. That same dissociation of responsibility allows our government to enact far reaching actions, largely for the benefit of a handful of Americans at the detriment of foreign nationals. You voted for Bush because your ego was invested in the Red side of the Red vs. Blue football game, but you shouldn't be thrown in jail because of the bloodshed that extra 4 years of Neocon foreign policy brought about. You aren't directly responsible, even though your actions brought it about. That is what Churchill should've said, but he was too stupid/too incompetent to understand it. Or maybe he was paid to misrepresent it.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    If ACLU wishes to defend Churchill, as they did his doppelganger North, I will not cancel my membership. That is the extent of my support. Something tells me that ACLU won't. This guy seems to be a graduate of Leonard Jeffries University but without Prof. Jeffries' integrity. ACLU defends people when corporations and government try to screw them, not the other way around.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#22)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    Tris. Are you in a position to fill us in on how things are going with Prof. Klocek? Is the ACLU working with him?

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    PIL: "He is, in a phrase, carrying that large chip on the shoulder that Jim claims, wrongly, us liberals have" I don't think that mischaracterizes your total support of Bush's lies, treason, corruption, and war crimes. It certainly characterizes the FASCIST hyper-nationalist 'with us or against us' nonsense that you constantly blather on about. PIL: "Add racism, and you have Jim's mix, which on the can says 'Nazism,' though he doesn't use it full-strength." This is argument, not slur. You are demonstrably racist in your 100% approval of Bush policy, which is demonstrably GENOCIDE. Supporting genocide IS racism. But to be clear, you were being used as a symbol for your ilk. If you don't want to be used as a whipping post, then quit being such a BOOTLICKING caricature of an R-winger. 'My country right or wrong' is the spiel of FASCISTS or cowards. Pick which one you are. It is unamerican, as R Teddy Roosevelt made completely clear. Your comment is utterly nonresponsive, as usual. What a flippiing surprise.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    [deleted] Ward Churchill, whatever else he is, has never committed war crimes, lied to Congress, conspired to treason, or been dependent on a presidential pardon to cover those crimes. So your whole comment is utterly wrong, tristero.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#25)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    What a sad show.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    Paul in LA, First, the folks who worked in the Trade Center were and are my neighbors. "LIttle Eichmanns" is the pejorative of a profoundly ignorant, angry and unstable mentality. In those ways, he is North's twin. Churchill will never be in a position to put his rage into US policy. So, fortunately, we'll never know whether he is as bloodthirsty as Oliver North. Second, Churchill's scholarship is genuinely suspect. I looked into it in some detail a while back and the charges are very serious and real. Worse, Churchill has never addressed the charges directly and in detail but instead merely attacked the motives of those hurling the charges. If ACLU, which has better resources than I do, determines that he has a legal case, fine. There are far more important issues to concentrate on right now than Churchill's fate. Sudan, Abu Ghraib, and christianism for example. Richard Aubrey, A couple of months or so ago, I asked you some questions on this site and got no response. I am returning your courtesy in kind.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#27)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM EST
    fatalbert- “First, it's C.U., not "UC", so how did you find his public record at an institution that doesn't exist?” University of Colorado; I just assumed. Anyway, his university affiliations are irrelevant to his publication record. There are number of very good tools available for these kinds of searches and none of them require a university affiliation; my university library has six for social sciences alone. Most scientists have publications written under multiple university/center affiliations. For example if you were to research my publication record under any one of my three university/center associations you would miss the bulk of my work. “Also, you mentioned earlier that Chomsky repeated much of the same sentiment, so why was it ok coming from Chomsky but not Churchill?” I explained why in my post. “Red skin maybe? You talk of his racism , but I consider your comments to have the true racist sentiments.” Don’t be a jack a$$, simply disagreeing with you doesn’t make me a racist. Anyway, the man isn’t an American Indian, none of the tribes he claims to descend from will grant him membership. It is irrelevant who your/his parents or grandparents are. His/Your ethnicity doesn’t imbue you with some unique moral authority to speak of race or label me a racist. “I share Churchill's heritage, and take offense with your characterizations of him.” The comment makes no sense, how does his publication record relate to his (or yours for that matter) ethnicity? You speak of liberals backing Churchill in the ‘fight’ against the right. I guarantee if the Democrats did embrace Churchill’s views the Republicans would eviscerate the already stumbling party. Ward Churchill’s views are hardly representative of the bulk of American voters. Native American tribes are distancing themselves from Churchill for good reason; liberals should follow suite.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    On the "little Eichmans" comment by "Old Iron Eyes" it seems that it fits perfectly with the professor himself. Afterall didn't he serve in Vietnam advancing the imperialistic American cause? So I guess Churchill himself is a "little Eichman", eh? No he's an intellectual and academic fraud that's all and deserves to be hoisted on his own petard.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    pigwiggle, you're right. Churchill has nothing whatsoever to do with liberalism, let alone the Democratic party. He loathes them but the feeling is not mutual. I suspect my opinion is widely shared: since he is so unimportant and so fraudulent, the response of this liberal is closer to indifference. Again, his civil liberties get violated and ACLU chooses to defend him, that's fine with me. I'm not gonna resign from ACLU over their position on Ward Churchill, of all people. But anything else, fuhgeddabout it, as we say here in New York.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    I feel compelled to jump into this very disheartening discussion, because it hits close to home for me. Ward Churchill speaks profoundly for me, and members of my family. We have suffered under the heavy hand of the U.S. Government, and know how difficult it is to retrace your heritage once records have been "disappeared". Many of our people were taken from their families, placed in schools, then given to new "families" to work for them for free, as in the case of my Grandmother. Aside from all that, it's apparent that many of you are making assumptions, and passing judgements, without enough evidence. I hope you friends on the left won't be misguided by the hate-spewing, right-wing talk I have witnessed on this topic. As Fred said, "What a sad show". I couldn't agree more.

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#31)
    by shmerritt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    A documentary film about the Ward Churchill controversy is being made in Boulder; it appears that the makers of the film are hardly neutral observers, but the press release may be of interest to those posting on this subject. Here's a link. For updates on Ward Churchill, it is useful to do a Google search and then hit "news" in the top menu. Updates about the 60-day extension of the CU investigation (announced this past week/weekend) to examine the allegations of the Rocky Mt. News series will come up. I have been away and read the first 2 parts of the Rocky Mt. News series before I left; but I still have to read the remaining ones. My impression of the first two parts is that they conveyed nothing new and just repeated previous allegations in a summary manner without paying careful attention to differences of motives in interpretation that careful reading and collations of the books and articles both by Churchill and those claiming plagiarism and inaccurate presentations reveal. The newspaper's so-called "investigation" is not so much new investigative reporting, it appears to me so far, as it is a summary of earlier charges made already online (mostly) and in print (less so).

    Re: Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media (none / 0) (#32)
    by shmerritt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    Re: the news updates: Here's a selection. Note that on June 18th, the Rocky Mt. News (of course) has published news about another probe, focusing on his preface to his late third wife's posthumously-published book begun by her family. At first (superficial) glance, that too does not bode well for Ward Churchill, but, like most of the other "probes," this one seems rife with the political and other subjective motivations of those involved (her family members, him) and is not "neutral" either. It may be impossible for Ward Churchill to have an "objective" hearing in the media and in his university. There are too many vested interests directed against one another in this case, it seems. I think that it is likely that, if the university investigation is done fairly, his colleagues will conclude that the allegations made against him (like his own allegations made against those in the WTC and the United States in his writings and lectures and other public statements) are themselves political in nature. Therefore, it may be a wash (as opposed to a white-wash, I hope). [Does "Whitewater" come to mind? Too much muddying of the waters (by political operatives with vying motives) to get a clear view?]

    Ward Churchill: New Investigation By Media | 32 comments (32 topical)