Except that Churchill was not a documented plagiarist and fraud, as that argument got shot down handily in the trial which has just concluded.

He MUST therefore be directing his suspicions toward the very Indian tribe which publicly/formally revoked Churchill’s strictly HONORARY membership in their tribe for abusing it by claiming false blood ties as a way to finagle his was to his both his academic and administrative positions at CU.

You, on the other hand, are a demonstrable liar.

Ward Churchill’s membership in the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee is an associate membership, not an honorary membership. This means that Ward Churchill has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the the Keetowah Band that he was less than of 1/4 “Cherokee” heritage (granting the racist assumption, promulgated by the Dawes Roll, that Cherokee identity is reducible to a strict blood quantum). 1/4 or above can be admitted as a full member.

His membership was confirmed by the very same Keetowah Band on June 4, 1994, after Churchill’s initial enrollment and despite the alleged “formal” revocation (which was never formal, nor was his membership revoked).

Free speech and tenure arguments aside, the fact that Churchill was a documented plagiarist and fraud who lied on his job application is reason enough for ANY employer
to terminate the man. True enough, it was his publicized statements about 9/11 which inflamed public opinion, but that only exposed the sloppiness and idiocy of an administration too lazy and indifferent to properly vet a walking fraud. And I don’t understand Colin Danby’s “suspicions” either. He MUST therefore be directing his suspicions toward the very Indian tribe which publicly/formally revoked Churchill’s strictly HONORARY membership in their tribe for abusing it by claiming false blood ties as a way to finagle his was to his both his academic and administrative positions at CU. The fact that CU hired this fraud in the first place reflects poorly on CU—and those here who come to the defense of this academic fraud also foolishly cover themselves in ignominy—both intellectual and ethical.

I repeat, the guy has a serious publication record. You want to read and critique it, please go ahead. But I’m suspicious when people instead go straight to the bloodline.

I think one reason that many of us regard Churchill as something of a charlatan is the disjunct between his academic preparation and his appointment. I’m all for interdisciplinarity, but it does seem that it was his claim to being a Native American that got him hired. Which brings me to the second reason for holding him in disregard (and as a charlatan): there is no evidence that he is NA.

It’s not actually terribly complicated. If an academic denies that the Holocaust happened, publishes those views in academic papers or presses, and clearly violates academic standards in doing so, then they should lose their job. Not because of what they said, but because of the grounds on which they made their claims. Now, if a professor denies the Holocaust but somehow has good academic grounds for doing so, then they shouldn’t lose their job. That would constitute a major ‘advance’ in our knowledge, if it were true. Which it’s not. Similarly, if an expert on epidemiology publishes ranting screeds in favour of Hitler in their own time, it is quite simply none of the University’s business.

You will, of course, know that many people justify genocide. And some of them don’t like Ward Churchill very much.

I simply don’t think academic freedom (or freedom of speech for that matter) is an absolute value.

Thought is more important than order. No order lasts forever, and no decent replacement of an expiring order can be arrived at without free thought.

That about sums it up. And let’s not forget who runs the CU Board of Regents: good ol’ Colorady WASPs, cronies of CoorsCo, the USAF, the Boulder development-boomtown, IBM, etc.