University Committee Recommends Firing Ward Churchill for Repeated Miscond

[Red State Rebel]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EMBATTLED_PROFESSOR?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=customwire.htm

DENVER (AP) -- A University of Colorado committee recommended on Tuesday firing a professor who called some of the World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," citing repeated research misconduct.

The panel's recommendation now goes to university officials for a final decision.


Churchill says he will sue if they fire him.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Well, that was a pretty damned uninformative AP story.

I read it & still don't know exactly what appened or why.

[struggle4progress]

49. The Report On Ward Churchill (Mayer / Swann's Commentary)

The Report On Ward Churchill
by Tom Mayer

... The text of the report suggests that the committee's judgments about the seriousness of Churchill's misconduct were contaminated by political considerations. This becomes evident on page 97 where the committee acknowledges that "damage done to the reputation of ... the University of Colorado as an academic institution is a consideration in our assessment of the seriousness of Professor Churchill's conduct." Whatever damage the University may have sustained by employing Ward Churchill derives from his controversial political statements and certainly not from the obscure footnoting practices nor disputed authorship issues investigated by the committee. Indeed, the two plagiarism charges refer to publications that are now fourteen years old. Although these charges had been made years earlier, they were not considered worthy of investigation until Ward Churchill became a political cause célèbre. Using institutional reputation to measure misconduct severity amounts to importing politics through the back door.

The report claims that Professor Churchill engaged in fabrication and falsification. To make these claims it stretches the meaning of these words almost beyond recognition. Fabrication implies an intent to deceive. There is not a shred of evidence that the writings of Ward Churchill contain any assertion that he himself did not believe. The language used in the report repeatedly drifts in an inflammatory direction: disagreement becomes misinterpretation, misinterpretation becomes misrepresentation, misinterpretation becomes falsification. Ward may be wrong about who was considered an Indian under the General Allotment Act of 1887 or about the origins of the 1837-1840 smallpox epidemic among the Indians of the northern plains, but the report does not establish that only a lunatic or a liar could reach his conclusions on the basis of available evidence.

The charges of fabrication and falsification all derive from short fragments within much longer articles. The report devotes 44 pages to discussing the 1837-1840 smallpox epidemic. One might think that Ward had written an entire book on this subject. In fact this issue occupies no more than three paragraphs in any of his writings. In each of the six essays cited in the report, all reference to this epidemic could have been dropped without substantially weakening the argument. To be sure, the account given by Ward is not identical to that found in any of his sources, but it is a recognizable composite of information contained within them. The committee peremptorily dismisses Churchill's contention that his interpretation of the epidemic was influenced by the Native American oral tradition. This is treated as no more than an ex post facto defense against the allegation of misconduct. The committee also discounts Native American witnesses who support Churchill's interpretations as well as his fidelity to oral accounts. The centrality of the oral tradition is evident in many of Churchill's writings. His acknowledgments frequently include elders, Indian bands, and the American Indian Movement. He often integrates Native American poetry with his historical analysis. Three of his books with which I am familiar, Since Predator Came (1995), A Little Matter of Genocide (1997), and Struggle for the Land (2002) all begin with poems. As a thirty-year veteran of the intense political struggles within the American Indian Movement, Ward Churchill could not avoid a deep familiarity with the oral tradition of Native American history ...

About the Author
Tom Mayer is a professor of sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder

http://www.swans.com/library/art12/zig094.html

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. Here we go again...

"The school's investigation focused on allegations that Churchill committed research misconduct and plagiarism."

Yet those accusations have never been detailed as far as I know.
And they always bring up the Eichmann comment even when the article states "The panel did not address his essay relating the 2001 terrorist attacks to U.S. abuses abroad."

:popcorn:

[rinsd]

5. Here's the report

http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/churchillreport051606.html

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earthside]

4. Churchill is a Thief

When I saw that Churchill had copied the artwork of Thomas Mails, then signed it as his own, that was it for me.

That's about as low as you can go.

He should be fired.


Original artwork by Thomas Mails(KCNC-TV, Denver)


Artwork signed by Ward Churchill (KCNC-TV, Denver)

'Original' Churchill Art Piece Creates Controversy
by CBS4 News reporter Raj Chohan and news4colorado.com staff

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. that is low

:(

you may be right.

[wordpix2]

51. looks like he just flipped the image. Great mentor for student plagiarism

:sarcasm:

[xenu]

80. well, he did color it

Is that a paint by number?

[lynne]

54. That did it for me, too

- He is a thief. And a bad one, at that.

Churchill has been relieved of his duties and it's far past time.

[xenu]

81. the question is this, however

Does Churchill come under extra scrutiny because of his politics?

Are there other academics who may have committed plagiarism but
who do NOT fall under such scrutiny or condemnation because they are
white or because they do not have such a high political profile?

I think this ought to be factored into his case.

[Buzz Clik]

96. It will be considered in his lawsuit...

but it is irrelevant in academe. He crossed the line of ethical behavior and should be gone. Period.

[slackmaster]

90. That's fucking HILARIOUS!

Yeah, at least he colored it.

:nuke:

[struggle4progress]

101. "Copy" in this context is a legal term, and a court would decide whether

this were a "copy," a "derivative work," or whatever. If Mail's estate feels the copyright has been infringed, then Mail's estate can sue; Churchill has indicated his defense would be to claim that this is a "derivative work." Having been a graphic artist, Churchill certainly ought to know what permissions distinguish a "copy" from a "derivative work": if it's a "copy," that's reprehensible; if it's a "derivative work," then there are absolutely no grounds whatsoever for complaining of Churchill on this matter.

I have no opinion on whether this is a "copy" or a "derivative work." It's unclear to me what basis you have for insisting that this is a "copy."

[Igel]

7. I'm stunned.

Seriously. You can get by with tremendous amounts of crap and not be hauled up before privileges and tenure.

Of course, legal action is the threat for the administration; the faculty don't much care about such drivel. The administrators will consider the threat of lawsuit and of damage to their reputation, and the level of inconvenience.

But then he'll certainly appeal to systemwide privileges and tenure and file suit. I have no trouble believing that he's a good enough politician, regardless of his dubious research and art skills, that he can drag this out long enough that the easiest way is for them for grant him sufficient years (both age and tenure) to allow him to retire with full pension and rights.

Or at least he'll clear his name, somehow (if only by getting his critics to shut up) so he can be hired by buddy-defenders at some other school.

[Buzz Clik]

97. You have nailed it.

He will likely be gone, but he will be richer for his trouble.

[Imajika]

8. Excellent..

As a previous poster said, maybe they can hire a real Native American to replace him.

[DantesPit]

20. listening to a "real" Native American

http://www.counterpunch.org/churchill02212005.html

Russell Means: Thank you my relatives. I want to, first, apprise you before I introduce the many accomplishments of Ward Churchill among my people. We are the only ethnic group in the world that has to prove our degree of blood, like the dogs and the horses. It is because we live on America's concentration camps; the 'little Iraqs' called reservations, you know? We also don't have control of our natural resources, and the corporate might has been ripping us off from day one. That's part of the books, and part of the education that Ward has given not only to the university and its generations of students, but throughout the country and indeed, throughout the world. I want you to know that we are forbidden from choosing who are our Indian people, by the United States government. My own twin brothers were 32 years of age, and it was only after the American Indian Movement, and one of the leaders being Ward Churchill in the late seventies, got the right to be enrolled on my father's reservation, where I am enrolled. I wonder how many of Clear Channel columnists and naysayers are gonna condemn my brothers for not being Indian. Ward is my brother. Ward has followed the ways of indigenous people worldwide. If you do not believe so, then go to Geneva Switzerland, to the United Nations office of the working group of indigenous peoples, and you will find out that we as one people in the world, we say, if you know your ancestry, then you are who you say you are.
In the writings of Adolf Hitler, he began his idea of separation by race, in such a preference, by following and reading about the Indian policy of the United States of America, and he wrote in Mein Kampf, or in other writings, that it was a good idea to put people in reservations; hence his labor camps, hence which became concentration camps. And he classified people they did not want, by race. Apartheid South Africa, in 1964, passed the Bantu Development Act thirty years after the United States government passed the Indian Reorganization Act. The act that institutionalized apartheid, by race and degree of blood, in South Africa was literally copied from the Indian Reorganization Act of the United States. Both of those governments no longer exist, and you have these corporate minions from Clear Channel and the corporate media telling us who is our Indian leaders! Telling me that my brother is not an Indian! Because he hasn't been adequately registered.

[newblewtoo]

9. Shouldn't that be

Churchill says he will pseudo Sioux if they fire him ??

Sorry I just can not get behind anything about Mr. Churchill.

[DantesPit]

26. that's a pretty racist comment

considering Churchill's "registry" is with the Cherokee.

http://educationwonk.blogspot.com/2005/05/ward-churchill-update-tribe-repudiates.html

"Ward Churchill received an “Associate Membership” from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) council in May, 1994. He was not eligible for tribal membership due to the fact that he does not possess a “Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood” (CDIB) which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Interior / Bureau of Indian Affairs."

Interesting that the "issuer" of this "identity" is the US Department of Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairs, an entity which AIM occupied in the 70s and an entity which has been chastised by the Judicial Branch of the US Government for defrauding, systematically disenfranchising by removing tribes from Rolls, and whose estimated debt to the tribes of the United States is in the billions of dollars--and that's just for the known thefts of land and mineral rights. Here is just one example of that malfeasance:

http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/news/whistle.htm

See post 20 for Russell Means position on these "policies."

[Terran1212]

10. Let's get Ward Churchill!!!!!

Agree or disagree with his comments, but the main reason he's being attacked is for an essay that came out soon after 9/11 that no one read and then one person found it and publicized it and it was witch hunt time.

[truthInCO]

11. book deal in the works, movie deal and speaking tours

Yes, had he not written that essay no one would know his whole reputation was built on a lie and that he's taken credit for other's works many times. Students would continue on blissfully contemplating his wisdom and scholarly diatribes, parents paying thousands a month for their loved ones to be educated by this huckster. No one would know he was stomping on the faces of real civil rights activists and perservering native americans who have earned our respect and been countlessly stolen from by charlatans like Churchill. If only he hadn't written that essay, he'd be enjoying his fat paycheck, his tenure and looking forward to retirement.

That said, he'll likely fare well with a book and a sweet sweet lawsuit.

[Biernuts]

12. I don't care if he kissed Russ Feingold's ass on the Capitol steps

He's a lying asshole. What has the majority of DU consistently demanded for those judged to be lying assholes? No special treatment for this one just bcause some DUers like his lies. Fire his ass!

[Terran1212]

13. A little harsh

When we know absolutely nothing about the charges against him

[truthInCO]

14. We don't?

Here in Colorado we know plenty about the charges of academic fraud, side-by-side comparisons of artwork he claimed as his own, specific citations from published works that he claimed. We also know from geneology research and Comanche records that he is not who he claims to be, which is fine, if those who do belong don't care.

Yes, this information is not readily easy to find, it's fairly unpopular but nonetheless true. Wacademics protect their own, and journalists believing they are just an extension of the machine that will 'educate' us, are complicit.

I actually think it's a great thing for the sheeple who don't have time or faculties to research issues, they can just be handed a nicely packaged, polished reality.

[xenu]

82. So you admit that this information is hard to find

Then why do people outside of Colorado expect everyone else to form a judgment?

I haven't seen the evidence as I'm not privy to it, why should you expect that I and others come to a conclusion. This is a Boulder matter, why is everyone else expected to have an opinion on it?

"Wacademics"? Is this really an attack on Churchill, or is it an attack on "academics" whose politics are too apparent? I find the word reactionary.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

19. Read post #4

He's a plagiarist, and I hope he gets what's coming to him.

[Fluffdaddy]

18. Never mind

[marshall]

65. He shone a light on his own guilt

It is very true that the charges came about in part because of his activism, but he is guilty nonetheless. There are not doubt many scores of other academics and charlatans who are just as guilty as Churchill of plagiarism, theft, etc., but nobody knows about them because they don't draw attention to themselves. If one is going to become an activist, and praises to those who do, one must be careful to not have any skeletons in the closet or any other dishonestly because it will come out.

[xenu]

84. give me a break

Your argument is justification for those who 'witch hunt' not because they care about justice and fairness, but because it gratifies their sense of sadism.

I don't know enough about Churchill's case to decide one way or another , but I am suspicious of his critics and I am suspicious of those who would excuse them with a reactionary "he's asking for it" argument.

[DantesPit]

86. better said

than I could.

Although I did make a reference to Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" in a different post.

:-)

[paulk]

92. if you don't know about the case then inform yourself

there are links enough in this thread.

[marshall]

94. Explanation is not the same as justification

I'm not excusing the agenda of those who have sought to squelch Churchill's right to protest the current state of the country. But it's just reality that when you put yourself out there you will come under the radar of your opposition. Churchill's message would have far more weight if it were not overshadowed by his other nonrelated problems. The most effective activist is one who draws attention to the cause and not themselves.

[DantesPit]

15. Read Churchill's response

Here is Ward Churchill's response to the findings of the committee:
http://la.indymedia.org/print.php?id=160029

My first thought upon stumbling across this thread is to wonder what democracy really means anymore. But that's an aside and a distraction from the focus of this particular thread.

My second thought was, has anyone here read anything by Mr Churchill firsthand? The "incendiary" essay that mentions Eichmann (and that was completely distorted by the majority of the Press--see first resource, below)? Any of his books on genocide or the results of Imperial power? On Cointelpro and the FBI actions of the 60s and 70s (which fall right into the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzalez playbook? You can find many of them in libraries, or can buy them if so inclined.
http://catalog.multcolib.org/search/a?a
http://tinyurl.com/rwew8

The superficiality of "analysis" and "opinion" displayed in this thread is rather appalling and quite reactionary IMHO, and offers much support for words spoken by Churchill in this interview:
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07182005.html

Here are a few other resources for getting a better sense of the picture & implications of this entire situation (with small quotes to help you determine what you choose to read). But before taking these links on I suggest those casting stones in this forum to remember this quote:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Pastor Niemoller

http://www.republic-news.org/archive/111-repub/111_nenonen.htm
Drawing upon Hannah Arendt's analysis of the banality of evil, he writes that "a decided majority of those killed in the WTC attack might be more accurately viewed as 'little Eichmanns,' that is, as a cadre of faceless bureaucrats and technical experts who had willingly (and profitably) harnessed themselves to the task of making America's genocidal world order hum with maximal efficiency —than as 'innocents.'"
To support his assertions, Churchill provides very detailed chronologies of American deployments of military force since 1776 and obstructions of international law since 1945.

http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/05/19/wilson
By stretching the meaning of “research misconduct” far beyond its true definition, and by supporting the suspension and even dismissal of a tenured professor for his use of footnotes, the Colorado committee is opening the door to a vast new right-wing witch hunt on college campuses that conservatives could easily exploit across the country.

http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/06/16/jones
"But a wave of repression in American universities today is apt to have even more dramatic consequences for the nation than the repression of the Cold War.”

http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/06/09/bowen
But who should decide what the students learn and the criteria used to determine “learning”? By all customary standards of academic freedom, faculty professionals alone are qualified to determine curriculum and faculty alone are qualified to judge whether students have learned the material assigned.

http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/06/02/ehrlich
Two years ago — before David Horowitz, the Academic Bill of Rights, and other pressure points on political and ideological bias made the topic such a hot one — we were speaking at a national conference in Washington about a study that we are now just finishing. The study is called the Political Engagement Project and examines 21 undergraduate courses and programs that aim to strengthen the understanding, the skills, and the motivation needed to be politically engaged citizens.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Ward_Churchill
Ward Churchill or Ward LeRoy Churchill is an American academic and political activist. He is a tenured full professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and author of over 20 books and hundreds of essays. In addition to his academic writing, Churchill has written for several general readership magazines of political opinion. His work is primarily about the U.S. and its historical treatment of political dissenters in general and of American Indian peoples in particular.

http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/jouvert/v2i1/jbooks2.htm
Ward Churchill makes forceful claims about genocide in the Americas, most particularly concerning the extermination of millions of American Indians during the 'work' of conquest, colonization, and nation-building. He does not hesitate to interrogate notions of Holocaust--including Holocaust denial and Holocaust uniqueness--in order to rewrite the colonial history of North America, a history that continues to be inscribed through contemporary political, cultural, and ecological war against indigenous peoples.

[Fluffdaddy]

17. Weclome to the democraticunderground

[PeaceProgProsp]

21. Good response. People should read it.

[Submarine Guy]

23. Wow - excellent post, but....

If Churchill is such an outstanding scholar, perhaps he didn't need to lie about his ethnicity and artistic accomplishments?

[DantesPit]

25. what makes you think he lied?

I read this statement over and over: he lied.

But the Cherokee enlisted him in their rolls. Russell Means calls him brother. (You might want to take a look at post "20" for more info on this matter)

More importantly, where does the "prove your bloodlines" requirement come from (A: the US Govt Allotment Act) and who cited this same method of classification to justify "racial purity" (A: Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf)

And, even more importantly, what does his ethnicity have to do with his ideas? Must one be a Jew to sympathize or write about the Holocaust or pogroms? Must one be a Palestinian to speak truthfully about "Occupation"?

And regarding his art practices: have you never heard of readymades? Max Ernst's collages? Have you never seen velvet art of Elvis? While you may not like his art (I actually find the example cited quite beautiful), what does that have to do with his academic integrity?

I ask, have you read any of his books? His essays? Have you heard him speak or seen his generosity in seriously considering all questions asked of him?

Personally, I've had the pleasure of witnessing such generosity all too rarely, so Churchill's humanity and compassion stand out as something I want more of, not less. I've found the one book and three essays I've read by him, as well as the public appearances and interviews I've tracked down on the internet absolutely riveting and downright inspirational.

[RangerSmith]

63. Dude... please...

this is taking apologist to the highest of levels.

The guy took other peoples art and signed it as if it were his.

That alone would get you fired from any legitimate university.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

68. LOL...more straw men and bullshit

Ward is that you?

[DantesPit]

73. I'm contacting the Yankees

for your trademark infringement, you criminal, you.

You're getting lamer with each post.

But enough with your personal invective. You can't even figure out if I'm DantesPit, ronnie624, or zreosumgame, how can I expect you to ever understand the complexity and depth of Churchill's reasoning.

I am DantesPit, and ONLY DantesPit. Is that plain enough for you?

Do you even have any idea what that name might refer to? If you can figure it out you might actually begin to understand how disappointing and undeserving I find the human race, while I refuse to let those feelings kill my hope for a better world. I'll give you a hint, it involves seven rings.

[rinsd]

74. Lamer?

"You can't even figure out if I'm DantesPit or zreosumgame"

Well it would help if you didn't jump in midstream of argument with the wrong screenname.

"
for your trademark infringement, you criminal, you."

And I'm the one who would have trouble with the complexity (read: bullshit) of Churchill?

[DantesPit]

75. huh?

"Well it would help if you didn't jump in midstream of argument with the wrong screenname."

What in hell's name are you talking about? Not only are you getting lamer, your getting obtuse as well!

I've got more important and fulfilling things to do than deal with your pettiness. Have a good life.

[Buzz Clik]

99. Wow. What selective morality

"It is extremely unlikey that personal art activities by a history professor or a professor of linguistics are going to get him (or her) fired for academic malfeasance. If you know of such examples, cite them."

So, if no one can cite the exact example you seek, then Churchill is clean? Plagiarism is not tolerated in the academic environment, and it should not be. He is rightfully gone.

[xenu]

85. I'm not sure it would

It seems so trivial, especially since it was not copied exactly, but colored, and that Churchill claims this copying was specified at the time the works were originally distributed.

Regardless, I don't know if such a matter is relevant to his academic career. There is too much of a grey area there. I mean, I read his defense, and this stuff is too grey, and he pokes too many holes in their arguments against him. I think the default here, then, ought to be NOT firing him.

In any case, I don't like the fact that everyone outside of the University of Colorado is expected to pass judgment without being a witness to all of this. That alone taints the case against him, and makes it look as if it's politically motivated. I find it hard to believe that this is really about taking a tough stance on plagiarism. I think that those who merely want to take on plagiarism in academia ought to pick a less vulnerable (and less cheap) target if they want credibility for their own side. As such, this really appears to be a political tactic designed to make it easier to get rid of politically "unpopular" professors with very weak charges.

Find someone with less of a profile who may have committed plagiarism and then let's see what the result is.

[rinsd]

30. Sigh

"The "incendiary" essay that mentions Eichmann (and that was completely distorted by the majority of the Press--"

Yeah it would have gone over real well to explain that the essay really dealt with collective guilt and that collective guilt can only be felt by Americans or Nazis who Churchill sees as one in the same. He cites the ghosts of Nagasaki as some type of cosmic karma ignoring that perhaps the atomic bombimgs (following Churchill's logic) line may have been their karmic justice for Nanking.

It exposes a deep strain on the left, that America is always the sole source of evil. Go to the thread on the Hiroshima bombings. Over and over the statement innocents is applied. Yet you would have many people on that same thread come here and argue passionately for the concept of collective guilt as applied to Americans.

Personally I feel collective guilt is a load of bullshit used to rationalize punishment of whole peoples but that's just me.

[DantesPit]

39. leap of logic

I really don't get where you're coming from with this idea of collective guilt, and I would guess Churchill would consider this a red herring as well. Churchill''s essay is about policy decisions, and policy decisions that have been implemented by the US (and other nations) for hundreds of years (at least!).

Nor do I understand your position that this somehow represents "a deep strain on the left, that America is always the source of evil."

The policies and practices that Churchill addresses in his books and essays are policies that should be aggrssively addressed no matter where they are being implemented, or have been implemented, or by which nation that has implemented them: East Timor/Indonesia; Nanking and Manchuria/Japan; Tianimen Square/internally; Burma/internally; Chile/US, Afghanistan/Russian & the US; Gerogia/Russia; Armenia/Turkey; the Falklands/Britain; Cameroon & Algeria/France....).

[rinsd]

46. Have you read the essay?

The entire thing is about collective guilt whether from apathy or active participation. Shit he even rips the efforts of peace makers.

Here's a link: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

[DantesPit]

48. yes, I have

I've also read one of his books, tracked down numerous public appearances he has made that have made it onto the internet, and I've seen him speaking in person (the reason behind my comment about his generosity regarding audience questions). One of the things I find most admirable about his public appearances is the deep consideration he gives to even the most shallow questions (ala the Hannity/Colmes video I offered a link to).

Perhaps he does "rip the peacemakers" (though I'd appreciate a reference to try to understand your statement). Sometimes they deserve just as much criticism for shallow thinking as does a rabid neo-nazi. Like when the "liberal" former Senator from Oregon, on September 11, 2001, stated to me that "we have to protect our oil." Or when I discovered a film clip of Lloyd Bentsen saying we should nuke Vietnam.

[rinsd]

50. Here's quote I am referencing for anti-war folks

"In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing "moral witness" as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable. "

"Sometimes they deserve just as much criticism for shallow thinking as does a rabid neo-nazi."

Doubtful. Even at my harshest dealings with the clowns at ANSWER, I would never think such. And I consider those guys to be authoritarian holdovers from the WWP.

"Or when I discovered a film clip of Lloyd Bentsen saying we should nuke Vietnam."

Really? Do you have alink for that?

[DantesPit]

52. Lloyd Bentsen & deserving of criticism

I saw the Lloyd Bentsen clip when I was working in the stock film libraries of Prelinger Films (a significant portion of their archive is now online and downloadable for free usage--part of the public domain), Petrified Films (the folks who made Atomic Cafe) and Film/Audio Services (research and access to materials in the public domain).

Here is a link to Prelinger's archives online (a tremendous resource):
http://www.archive.org/details/prelinger

When I just searched the archive no Bentsen clips came up. They probably have not been digitized yet. But, the more I think about it, I may have seen this clip when I was doing research at the Library of Congress in 1987. I do know however I came across it, it was an accidental discovery. What I specifically remember about the clip is Bentsen being interviewed alone outdoors in a non-news type of situation. I believe the clip was probably recorded between 1964 and 1968. I'm also wondering if it appears in de Antonio's documentary "In the Year of the Pig."

I disagree with your "doubtful." Shallow thinking is shallow thinking. Closed-mindedness is closed-mindedness. Neither moves anywhere and both represent to me the epitome of the first law of entropy, at least metaphorically speaking. This is the reason I mentioned the comments by the Oregon Senator. I could look at his entire career and "forgive" him for this "slip," but that would be letting him off the hook for such careless (and Imperial and negligent and shallow) thinking. I appreciate it when people confront me for such thinking. That's the reason I mentioned the incident at the Grand Canyon in one of my other posts. While I might find the neo-nazi's take on things MORE reprehensible than a superficial liberal, I think both deserve being taken to task.

Regarding the quote you cite, I am in complete agreement with Churchill on this. He is not broadstroking all liberals, he is criticizing the type who says, "oh cool, I can sign this petition and then continue on my way to Starbucks." But then this is the difference between true "activism" and "passive" petition signing, though I have more respect for the petition signers than I do for those who sigh and say, "isn't it horrible, I wish I could do something about it" or those who think putting a bumper sticker on their car implies that they are informed and active.

[rinsd]

62. You have such a rigid ideology

And yet you say you hate close minded thinking.

One man's brief words of anger at a difficult time, you consider his entire career to be meaningless in the face of it.

Another man says horrible things on a particular day about people who were the victims in the tradgey. He is treated like a hero, even deified to an extent.

You have a seriously fucked up moral compass.

[ronnie624]

66. In typical fashion,

when you can't formulate a coherent argument, you attack ad hominem.

Face it. You don't have a leg to stand on.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DantesPit]

70. my compass

you are downright confusing. Is this deliberate, or just laziness on your part.

Perhaps my "ideology" appears rigid to you. I happen to believe that if one is going to set a "moral" standard then it should be consistent and, yes, unwavering. More important, it should be meted out with equality.

But to get back to the rest of your last post, who are you referring to when you say "One man's words of anger at a difficult time" and who are you referring to when you say "Another man says a horrible thing on a particular day?"

I could assign these descriptions to any of the three people we are talking about:

Mark Hatfield, that Senator from Oregon, 9/11/01:
"We need to protect our oil"
when thousands of Americans have died less than four hours before, he wants to protect "our" oil (which happens to be located in a sovereign nation on the other side of the world. Brief words of anger at a difficult time, or horrible things said on a particular day?

Lloyd Bentsen, from a film clip seen years ago:
(paraphrasing) We need to end this war quickly. We should attack Vietnam with nuclear bombs. (he might have said Hanoi)
even though North Vietnam had no weapons of parity and represented no direct threat to United States sovereignity. Brief words of anger at a difficult time, or horrible things said on a particular day?

Ward Churchill, shortly after 9/11/01:
publishes "Some People Push Back"
even though Churchill goes on to add in an addendum, "The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic."
(http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html)
He also later publicly stated, "Do I personally think it was a legitimate target or should have been a legitimate target? Absolutely not."
(http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/18/157211)
Brief words of anger at a difficult time, or horrible things said on a particular day?

You know what, I'll agree that all three are examples of both. But Hatfield never apologized in any way for his words. He has never been called upon to "explain" or "apologize" for what he said. The same hold true for Bentsen. But Chuirchill has been called upon, cajoled, insulted and challenged to do both, and he has responded, elaborated, and explained to a degree that, if you were to ask a child raised upon the ideas of "good" vs "evil" rather than a cynical, jaded, morally ambiguous adult who has learned that to negotiate the real world one must join with a pack, I think the child would get to the quick of the matter long before that adult ever could.

So, as I said at the beginning of this post, perhaps my "ideology" (a word I would never have chosen for my positions) is rigid. Perhaps I am being unrealistic in craving for a world where things are black & white/good or evil, but I'll take that over moral oscillation anyday. You may think my "moral compass" is fucked up, but yours is swinging like there is no magnetic north.

[rinsd]

72. Your Bentsen moment is BS until you provide proof

Anything...a link mentioning it even in passing would at least give a slight boost of cred.

C'mon, you can ghostwrite some shit up quick and reference it.

"Perhaps I am being unrealistic in craving for a world where things are black & white/good or evil,"

Yeah...black and white thinking....just what I thought.

[Phx_Dem]

78. maybe your thinking about Goldwater regarding the nuke quote

[DantesPit]

79. nope

the reason I remember seeing this film clip so strongly is because I was diggin' Bentsen's politics at the time (1986 or '87). I distinctly remember my mouth dropping open in amazement that these words were coming out of his mouth. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. But there it was.

I had an identical reaction when I heard Mark Hatfield, another political figure I quite admired, state to a friend videotaping him on 9/11/01 between approximately 8am and 10am for a tribute to Kathryn Harrison of the Grand Ronde tribe here in Oregon (within two hours of the WTC collapse), that "we need to protect our oil." FYI, Kathryn Harrison is one of the key individuals behind the reinstatement of the Grand Ronde Tribe after they had been eliminated as a tribe by the BIA. (http://tinyurl.com/hsxee)

I've sent an email to two of the three people who can most likely lead me to the source of this clip (I no longer have contact info for the third). When, and if, they can provide me with an idea of where the clip might be found I will post that info here.

And, in counter to rinsd's claim that I want to dismiss a man's entire career because of one moment where words were spoken in anger (at least I think he is referring to Bentsen when he says that--his post is unclear in identifying exactly who it is he is refering to), that is not my intent at all. It is this "moral compass" (as rinsd calls it) of mine that believes Churchill's entire career and written output should not be dismissed because of words spoken on one day in anger toward a series of administrations who have systematically (and, in many cases, unilaterally) bombed, invaded, supported death squads and political assasination, undermined elections, presented falsified evidence, etc, against other soveriegn nations. Need I mention the genocide committed against the aboriginal populations of this country over the past 514 years?

Whether rinsd believes it or not, I have the ability to understand that the human being is a complicated, messy, contradictory and confusing thing that changes over time (could David Horowitz not be a better example of this mutability?). Though rinsd may attempt to belittle my opinions with cracks about a fucked up moral compass or my craving for a black & white world where people act consistently, he misses the point that a craving represents an emptiness and hunger one hopes to fulfill. It doesn't represent something that necessarily will be filled.

[Buzz Clik]

98. Democracy, Bush, and politics aside ...

A committee of his peers found him guilty of misconduct. He lost his appeal. Pending the outcome of a lawsuit, he's gone.

The guy may be talented, but he struggles keeping a strong association with totally ethical behavior. And that's bad for business.

[Zynx]

16. Good. Forget this guy.

[DantesPit]

22. thoughts from a NMU history professor

The neo-conservative, neo-fascist standard for higher education is a mirror-image of German education in the 1930s. It is indeed time to "rethink patriotism." It is indeed time to hear what Ward Churchill actually said. If one cannot do so, then one can neither call oneself "American" nor "educated."

http://www.counterpunch.org/baker02072005.html

[rinsd]

34. Maybe Prof Baker should also read what Churchill said

This line absolutely slayed me

"one cannot and will not think critically when enslaved by ideology."

How else to describe the body of Churchill's academic work if not intrinsically entwined with his political ideology?

"What makes higher education "higher" is that it is a venue for considering all ideas, no matter how bizarre, how ridiculous, or how blasphemous."

I would suspect this would not extend to views that Prof Baker finds abohoirent but rather what the "establishment" thinks is.

[DantesPit]

40. she has

that's why she wrote what she did.

enslaved is different than entwined (enslaved = Hannity; entwined = Churchill & Horrowitz; but that's my personal opinion)

regarding Baker's views, you should either contact her and ask her this question yourself or you should refrain from putting words in her mouth. I posted the link to her comments because I believe they addressed fundamental cognitive issues that extend well beyond the Churchill controversy.

[rinsd]

45. I think its pretty easy to read her

Conformity = bad

Shock = good

"you should refrain from putting words in her mouth."

I described what I thought of her sentiments, I did not make up any quotes. Nice try though.

[DantesPit]

47. nice try

now you're just being rude.

but,

conformity = bad
yes, when it manifests itself as lynchings or, to use a more commercial example, how it is manifested in the Spencer Tracy film "The Fury," or when politicians say "they don't value life the same way we do."

Shock = good
I guess that depends on how one defines "shock"
I don't find Churchill's writings shocking. Startling, at times, but more often painful in the subject matter he addresses (versus how he addresses them)

[Buzz Clik]

100. Churchill is NOT being tossed because of his politics

He's being fired for academic misconduct. I fully support his right to say anything he wants, as long as the ideas he publishes and for which he takes credit are actually HIS.

[western mass]

24. OK, who has ACTUALLY READ the committee report?

The link was posted above, but here it is again:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf

I just read it. That a tenured prof would be fired for this stuff alone--never happen unless said prof was on the receiving end of an academic lynching, and that's exactly what happened.

There are 7 charges:

Four very specific examples of poor scholarship (eg in paragraph X of article Y, WC misrepresents the content of the General Allotment Act of 1887). The report goes to great lengths to portray these as fabrications and academic misconduct, when the most you can actually conclude is that they're examples of incompetant scholarship.

Is WC a second-rate scholar? It wouldn't surprise me, given these examples. On the other hand, all the committee comes up with are these 4 lousy little examples. These are the sorts of things that get hashed out in academic debate--this sort of formal administrative scrutiny is a joke.

There are two charges of plagiarism that don't hold up (although they do point to incompetance or questionable ethics).

There is, finally, one real case of plagiarism (the Dam Dam pamphlet). WC needs to be humiliated and reprimanded on this one. However, it amounts to a single, fairly insubstantial paragraph - the equivalent of a plagiarism misdemeanor. Show me a case of someone being fired for something like this.

WC has some things to be embarrassed about. Maybe he really is a shitty scholar. But if you actually take the time to wade through the BS, the hyperbole, and the rightwing noise machine, the real story is that this whole thing is a joke and a witch hunt. The academics who signed up for this committee should be ashamed of themselves for letting themselves be the ass puppets of the rabid right.

[rayofreason]

27. I read the report.

Churchill's actions rise to the level of academic misconduct needed to fire him at any university I know - and I have served at three R1s.

[DantesPit]

28. the Dam Dam pamphlet

re: "There is, finally, one real case of plagiarism (the Dam Dam pamphlet). WC needs to be humiliated and reprimanded on this one. However, it amounts to a single, fairly insubstantial paragraph - the equivalent of a plagiarism misdemeanor. Show me a case of someone being fired for something like this."

It is apparent to me that whether or not plagiarism exists in this example is a matter of who you are going to believe, Churchill or the committee. While the committee credentials look pretty good, Churchill raises specific issues about that committee makeup. You can read more about that in Churchill's response to the committee findings:
http://la.indymedia.org/print.php?id=160029

But, specifically addressing the Dam Dam pamphlet, here is Churchill's telling of his side of that story (excerpt):
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07182005.html

"So here's the story. Along about 1988, I testified on the Peltier case before an international tribunal in Toronto. While I was there, I met a guy named John Hummel who worked with the Alliance in Solidarity with Native Peoples and, as I recall, was part of an environmental group called Dam the Dams. He asked if I could help publicize the rather vast water diversion projects underway in northern Canada and their impacts on indigenous peoples, especially in the west. I readily agreed, and a little later he sent me a whole big box of material: not only pamphlets and Xeroxes of newspaper and magazine articles, but copies of official documents, correspondence, and so on. Since the initial emphasis was to be on western Canada, I locked in on a pamphlet by Dam the Dams covering NAWAPA-the North American Water and Power Alliance-a grandiose scheme to move massive amounts of water from the Yukon River all the way down to the Rio Grande, which had been initiated as a U.S./Canadian collaboration during the 1960s. I took the pamphlet, substantially reorganized it, rewrote parts of it, added a few more recent cites, and included it in the first volume of my Critical Issues in Native North America in 1989. Authorship was listed as a collaboration between Dam the Dams and my own research group, the Institute for Natural Progress (INP), and the address Hummel had provided for Dam the Dams was included at the end of the piece for those seeking further information.
"The idea being to publicize the issue as broadly as possible, I also sent a somewhat contracted version of the piece to Z Magazine, then called Zeta, to which I was at the time a regular quarterly contributor. Z's procedure was, when possible, to have several articles by given contributors "in the can" at any given moment, and run whichever piece seemed most appropriate, or in which they themselves were most interested, or which conformed most closely to their available space-or whatever when each contributor's turn came up in the rotation. They also mucked around with things a bit from time to time, for production or editorial reasons. The upshot in this instance was that the NAWAPA piece, titled "The Water Plot," didn't actually come out in Z for nearly two years, and, although I'd submitted it as coauthored, it appeared under my by-line, solo, with Dam the Dams included only by way of the contact info being included at the end.
"I wasn't especially happy about authorship of the article being presented that way, and said so, but the magazine was already on the stands before I was aware of the alteration. It was an accumulation of that sort of thing that caused me to stop writing for Z altogether-it was supposed to be a collective effort, but it never really was-a couple of years down the line. Anybody wanting to know more about the decision-making involved should feel free to contact Mike Albert or Lydia Sargent. It was. and, so far as I know, still is their show.
"One thing, though. Z is not an academic venue (I don't claim anything I've published therein as "scholarly writing"). It's always been explicitly political. "Movement work," so to speak. And the rules in that arena are very different than they are in academia, or even in the realm of commercial publishing....

"Be all that as it may, nothing more happened with regard to "The Water Plot" for several years. Then, in the late-90s, while preparing the 2002 edition of my Struggle for the Land, I wrote a whole new and far more comprehensive essay on Canadian water diversion projects, covering not just NAWAPA but GRAND, James Bay I, Great Whale, and so on. The result was vastly different from the little piece I originally cobbled together as a collaborative effort between Dam the Dams and INP. With regard to NAWAPA itself, I drew on a much broader range of materials, but-and let's be clear about this-I made attribution to Dam the Dams, not once but four times.
So what's the problem? You tell me. It appears that Caplis and his liberal friends are arguing that since I once coauthored a piece on NAWAPA with Dam the Dams, any time I mention NAWAPA forever after, I'm obliged to list the group as coauthor. Otherwise, I'm "plagiarizing" them. They're treating coauthorship like it constitutes something akin to marriage, till death do us part. The whole thing is absurd on its face.
"Here, let me show you just how absurd it really is. I've been relying on Jon Wiener's new book, Historians in Trouble, in offering a lot of the examples I've used in this interview concerning plagiarism and fraud (Wiener's subtitle is Plagiarism, Fraud, and Politics in the Ivory Tower). He has a whole chapter on the David Abraham case, and in the annotation to that chapter, he cites Peter Novick's 1988 book, That Nobel Dream, three times. Now, read pages 612-21 of Novick, where he discusses Abraham, and compare it to Wiener. What you'll find is that Wiener is in large part virtually paraphrasing Novick. So here's the deal. By the "standard" they're trying at this point to use on me, the guy who just wrote the book on plagiarism is himself guilty of it. Either he is, or I'm not. One or the other. The matter can't be had both ways....

"In other words, if there's going to be a standard applied in circumstances like these-and I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be-it's going to be one size fits all. It's not going to be situational, with the "bar" raised and lowered, depending on your politics or popularity."
(end of excerpt)

As a personal aside, one of the more distressing aspects of this entire matter to me is--to use an appropriate analogy--the "circling the wagons" mentality that pervades most "liberal" reactions to the entire brouhaha. This circling is based upon a deliberate (and perhaps emotionally driven) misreading of the "Some People Push Back" essay. If you read it closely at no point does Churchill say he personally believes those in the WTC "deserved" what they got. What he does suggest is that if one uses the criteria as defined and used by the Pentagon and DOD (et al) to bomb specific targets in Iraq then, if the tables are turned 180 degrees and the same rules are allotted to the "opponent" in this "war," the WTC was a legitimate target and those who died as a result of the destruction of the towers fall into the category of "acceptable" collateral damage (I repeat, as defined by the US Government). Churchill, in an attempt to further clarify his article even goes so far as to say the following: "The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things." (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html) Does such a statement suggest willful dishonesty? Not in my book. Dishonesty is better represented by this exchange, which offers an excellent example of the willful and concerted distortion of Churchill's words:
transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190967,00.html
video: http://tinyurl.com/zkz5k (if this link doesn't work you can get to the video from the transcript link)

But, of course, one must accept the proposition that Iraq colluded with bin Laden to believe that attacking Iraq in a "war on terror" was an appropriate response to the destruction of the WTC. While that is a position that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell and Rice each stated over and over (and then later denied making), I can't help but think of Bush's statement that, "There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: 'Fool me once... ... shame on... Shame on you... If fooled, you can't get fooled again.'"

That is the only statement by Bush I have ever taken to heart.

[zreosumgame]

29. sorry Ward

but even those who pretend at being progressives do not have the time or interest in finding out real facts, they are just as happy to take the FAUX BS and smear you as any of dumbaya's base of morons.

[rinsd]

31. Everybody does it or its someone else's fault?....that's his defense?

A shitty scholar willling to bend his research to fit his political goals.

And then he compares his treatment to that of Malkin? How telling....

[zreosumgame]

32. that is not what he said

his claim is that since the person ACCUSING him was doing effectively what he was accusing Ward of, then how could what Ward supposedly had done be judged differently from his accuser? Basic fairness would say that was wrong. After all you don't advocate different sentences for black people and whites having committed the same crime, do you? or is it only in some cases? how do you choose? is it only those the US government have decided are 'real' native americans (as opposed to actual bloodlines and history and stuff that is apparently way to difficult for you) by FIAT that you practice this bigotry on?

[rinsd]

33. Really?

"I have published some two dozen books, 70 book chapters and scores of articles containing a combined total of approximately 12,000 footnotes. I doubt that any even marginally prolific scholar’s publications could withstand the type of scrutiny to which mine has been subjected

The highlights are mine.

The rest of your post appears to be about an argument you are having with someone else.

[zreosumgame]

35. do try to follow the thread

and perhaps since you replied to me you could stay on the same subject and not post irrelevant stuff?

[rinsd]

Oh you are a trip

"do try to follow the thread"

I was. I'm not sure why I was told I was a bigot for questioning Churchill's Native American heritage when I did no such thing.

"and perhaps since you replied to me "

Ummm your original reply to me came out of the blue. I was responding to DantesPit. You responded to me and attacked me for something to do with Churchill's racial heritage. See that follow the thread thing may be advice best taken by yourself.

"you could stay on the same subject and not post irrelevant stuff"

Yes, how dare I talk about Churchill and use quotes from the OP's article about Churchill in a thread about Churchill.

Oh I am sorry I caught on now. I'm guessing you're posting from multiple screen names and got confused because that's the only way your post makes sense.

[DantesPit]

41. I didn't call you a bigot

I said "that's a pretty racist comment" (using "pseudo Sioux" and lumping all tribes together when Churchill has never claimed Sioux identity).

Racist comments can come out accidentally with no ill intent, which I will elaborate upon momentarily. Your comment came across to me as somewhat akin to asking a black executive at Intel what he thought about Eminem as a rap artist.

I fell into that pit (no pun on my email name intended) once when I was at the Grand Canyon and said to a Navajo, "oh, your Grandmother is from Mexico?" His reply that, "my people were here long before Mexico or the United States existed" was entirely appropriate. Did his comment imply I was a racist? Absolutely not. It demonstrated that I was displaying a certain amount of ignorance about a particular historical fact. For me, this is no different than when Robbie Robertson appeared on Larry King and King said, "so it would be OK for me to call a Native American a 'skin'?" Robertson's reply, "I don't think that would be a very good idea, Larry" was both hilarious and appropriate.

[nick303]

42. Lot of stretching going on for a guy who posts a link to

Counterpunch, an undeniably anti-Semitic and unconstructively anti-American site.

[struggle4progress]

53. Since when is Counterpunch "undeniably anti-Semitic" and "anti-American"?

I personally find the site uneven in quality, sometimes a bit shrill, and I certainly don't agree with everything posted there.

But I make a serious effort not to link to anti-semitic, homophobic, racist, or otherwise prejudiced sites -- and if I had ever seen evidence in my occasional visits that the site was anti-Semitic, I would absolutely never use it. So -- if you have evidence that Counterpunch is "undeniably anti-Semitic," perhaps you could share your evidence?

In a similar vein, would you mind providing support for your claim that the site is "anti-American"?

[nick303]

58. Any article by Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein should be

sufficient.

Or alternately you can find a lot of support coming from Stormfront et al for any the books from Counterpunch Books on Israel/Judaism.

[struggle4progress]

59. Link please

[drduffy]

55. nonsense

Pardon the bluntness but that is nonsense.
Counterpunch is a very reasonable site. Progressive and leftist.
Half of my family is Jewish. I don't believe I am anti-semitic.
I've not seen anything yet that I view as anti-semitic.
I've not read everything there but I've not seen much I disagree with so far.

[DantesPit]

56. you just don't get it

First, I am DantesPit. I am not zerosum...whatever the rest of that name is.

Second, calling Counterpunch an undeniably anti-Semitic site is like calling Chomsky or Zinn jew hating jews. It's pointless, superficial, baiting and irrelevant, not to mention deniable. I have many Israeli friends, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't and don't criticize 35+ years of oppression of a large portion of Israel's population (Palestinians), just as the Israelis in Israel who criticize the occupation continue to do, just as Ha'Aretz continues to do--that's right, there is no country called Palestine anymore, so Palestinians are, by "international default," citizens of Israel. Nor does it mean I should support statements like these:

"What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We
need precision in time, place, and casualties...we
must strike mercilessly, women and children
included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the
place of action, there is no need to distinguish
between guilty and innocent."
David Ben-Gurion

"There was no such thing as Palestinians; they never existed"
Golda Meier

"The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today"
Pat Robertson

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong
has been done to the Red Indians of America or the
black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong
has been done to these people by the fact that a
stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly
wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken
their place."
Winston Churchill

BTW, all of these quotes come courtesy of Counter Punch. If they are undeniably anti-Semitic, why would they include the Pat Robertson quote? That's a rhetorical question.

As for it's "anti-American" status, that lumps any kind of criticism of US policy into the same camp. It is no wonder you have problems with Churchill. But, to paraphrase him, I love this country and that's why I'm trying to address these issues, so that S.O.P. can be changed or at least honestly confronted, and so that the kind of disaster that the WTC represents--a direct result of US policy--won't happen again.

What's next on this plate you are serving? Love it or leave it?

[rinsd]

43. Would the real person arguing with me please stand up?

My response was to zerosumgame because he/she wrote this response to me.

"After all you don't advocate different sentences for black people and whites having committed the same crime, do you? or is it only in some cases? how do you choose? is it only those the US government have decided are 'real' native americans (as opposed to actual bloodlines and history and stuff that is apparently way to difficult for you) by FIAT that you practice this bigotry on?"

Which had nothing to do with what I posted.

I didn't say anything about Churchill's heritage in this entire thread so again I am left confused.

[rinsd]

36. self delete double post

[DantesPit]

37. highlights are mine

re: "'I doubt that any even marginally prolific scholar’s publications could withstand the type of scrutiny to which mine has been subjected'
The highlights are mine."

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say via the text you chose to highlight. Care to elaborate?

To me the sentence means that intense scrutiny has been applied to all of his writings since long before his controversial essay was published. Furthermore, if his writing has already withstood such (international) analysis, why haven't such criticisms been directed toward his previous writings by more than the few who have accused him of plagiarism, many of whom have a vendetta against him (Bellancourt, for example).

I really think you need to do a bit more research on this and related matters (even taking a look at the Hannity/Colmes ambush, for which I posted a link, should be an eye opener), but perhaps I am wrong and I just don't understand your "highlight" shorthand.

[rinsd]

38. Chuckle....

My highlight shorthand was in regards to my statement of Churchill's defense being "everybody does it"(my quote). His statement(that I highlight) in regards to scrutiny gives the distinct impression that mistakes would be found in other works if they had to endure the process that his stuff has.

No more research is really needed. I've read the committee report and his reponse to it, seen the ripoffs of artwork and I read the whole original essay dealing with the Eichmann's comment. Now I haven't read every book he has ever done but I think I have quite enough on which to base my opinion.

[DantesPit]

44. that's what I thought

that "in regards to scrutiny gives the distinct impression that mistakes would be found in other works if they had to endure the process that his stuff has" was what you meant, which is, I think, exactly his point. It goes to his stance that the bar should be identical, not raised or lowered according to one's political leanings.

[blitzen]

57. you're leaving out the part about how he ghostwrote articles

under others' names (including his now ex-wife), and then cited them as his authorities. It certainly seems like academic misconduct, although I'm not sure that it warrants dismissal

[Secret Agent]

60. It most definitely warrants dismissal.

This backward looking reject should be fired ASAP.

[Secret Agent]

61. It most definitely warrants dismissal.

This backward looking reject should be fired ASAP.

[DantesPit]

64. who is "you"

and can you please provide links or excerpts?

I can say that I've pretty thoroughly looked into this "Churchill affair" and only recently have I started hearing anything about ghostwriting--meaning I haven't had an opportunity to look into it yet. But, being married to a book editor who has edited some amazing authors (Oliver Sacks, Stephen J Gould, Tim Cahill, Jan Morris, Jamaica Kincaid, and others), I know that there is nothing inherently "bad" about ghostwriting (not to suggest that she has ghostwritten for any of the authors listed--she is an EDITOR). Ghostwriting happens all the time--people even create careers performing this task (here's an example: http://home.swbell.net/moonshad/ghostwriting.html). It is worthwhile checking out this link just for the examples cited.

Here is Wikipedia's definition of ghostwriting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter

When you think about it, Karl Rove is George Bush's Ghostwriter. So, I guess we should fire the bums, eh? Anyway...

Of course there are certain situations where ghostwriting would be inappropriate so, if you have more specific information about Churchill's ghostwriting activities, I'd like to hear about it so that I can make up my own mind about the "propriety" of his activities rather than just "taking your word for it." I'd also like to hear a bit more than "he did it, ergo, he is BAD." If you feel his ghostwriting activities are BAD, tell me WHY you think so. What justifies your claim that it is BAD BAD BAD!!!

And, to Secret Agent and some of the other clones from Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery," I really hope you are willing to hold as bright a light to your activities in a PUBLIC manner as you are willing to cast stones at others who are under glaring public scrutiny. If you won't, or can't, you're just hypocrites. And I say that with all the venom I've gleaned from your posts.

[rinsd]

71. LOL..this is priceless..

"I really hope you are willing to hold as bright a light to your activities in a PUBLIC manner as you are willing to cast stones at others who are under glaring public scrutiny. If you won't, or can't, you're just hypocrites"

From an anonymous internet poster that has been here for 3 days...that reall hurts <sniff>

[DantesPit]

76. and rinsd isn't anonymous?

I'll tell you what, you post your real name, your street address, and your annual income here and I'll do the same.

Fair's fair.

[rinsd]

77. LOL

What's next challenging me a to a fight in the "real" world?

If you want to learn about me and who I am, there are thousands of posts here on DU.

"I'll tell you what, you post your real name, your street address, and your annual income here and I'll do the same"

Haywood Jablome
123 Fake St
"what I finds, I keeps"

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

88. So--what's your point?

What do you recommend we do to protect the guy you've defended in such a verbose manner?

And why do you call someone an "idiot" & "greedy bastard" just because you disagree?

Why should most of us care about infighting in academia?

[DantesPit]

93. at last, a series of questions worth responding to

"And why do you call someone an "idiot" & "greedy bastard" just because you disagree?"
I called him an idiot because he repeatedly resorted to ad hominem and unsupported attacks on me and the numerous links I provided, not to mention his calling CounterPunch anti-Semitic and anti-American. The reference to "greedy bastard" arose from his little sig: "what I finds, I keeps." Read enough of his posts and you will see the personal invective which HE introduced to the discussion.

Why should most of us care about infighting in academia?
This is not so small a matter as academic infighting. This is about CONTROLLING the academic environment on a scale equal to what the Fox Network calls news. There are dozens of examples of governements around the world controlling the academic environment, or attempting to do so, as a means of controlling intellectual investigation. The US spent 30-odd years claiming this kind of limiting of access to information was why Russia should be seen as our sworn enemy. The German goverment did it when they eventually got to the point of requiring proof of Aryan identity for all professors employed at every University in Germany (WWII). Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge did it during the time of the killing fields. The US Government just did it twice:
http://progressive.org/mag_mc062806
http://progressive.org/mag_mc062606

What do you recommend we do to protect the guy you've defended in such a verbose manner?
Is this a jab at my sincerity? Verbose: Using or containing a great and usually an excessive number of words
Whatever, I'll answer the question anyway, and I'll try to keep it short.
I am not particularly concerned with protecting Ward Churchill specifically. As he said to Sean Hannity, "I'll take care of my own soul." Being somewhat informed on his historical, political and personal activities (and having personally seen him speaking) I'm quite certain he is capable of doing just that.
What I am concerned about, because it has ramifications for a future that will continue long after I'm gone, is the idea of politically motivated attacks on scholars of any political stripe or ethnic persuasion (realistically, this should be expanded to any individual, not just scholars) and the subsequent limiting or eliminating of access to information or opinions I wish to investigate using my own criteria. This has already happened too many times in this country. It happened with HUAC, which destroyed numerous lives. It was attempted through Cointelpro activities. The practice has been exported abroad to client states. It is happening now, here:

http://dangerousprofessors.net/
http://www.goacta.org/whats_new/How%20Many%20Ward%20Churchills.pdf
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/06/09/bowen
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen02082006.html
http://www.swans.com/library/art12/zig094.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/baker02072005.html
ttp://insidehighered.com/views/2006/06/16/jones

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

And I just read that Colorado Universities are calling for "oaths of allegience." (Sorry, no link readily available for that, but I'll find it if you really want me to)

Last time I heard a call for an oath of allegiance was from Eugene McCarthy when he queried, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party." Needless to say, the Communist Party at the time, and to this day I assume, has never been an illegal party in this country. And, no, I'm not a communist, though I maintain the right to read Marx or Marxism Today whenever and wherever I wish to do so.
http://tinyurl.com/gc3cu

[rinsd]

95. Sigh....so many lies so little time...

"I called him an idiot because he repeatedly resorted to ad hominem and unsupported attacks on me and the numerous links I provided"

And ya know what? I'm fine with being called an idiot. And this certainly degraded quickly but it takes two to tango and if you could have keep the thread order straight and not poisted from multiple screennames we wouldn't have this problem.

"not to mention his calling CounterPunch anti-Semitic and anti-American."

Show me where I did this? That was Nick303.

"Read enough of his posts and you will see the personal invective which HE introduced to the discussion"

You called me a bigot for no reason because you got confused on the positng order(2 other posters way upthread did say something about his heritage) and you never apologized. You simply rationalized it away that it was an honest mistake on my part then sharing your Grand Canyon story. This depite the fact I didn't do anything of the sort.

"
The reference to "greedy bastard" arose from his little sig: "what I finds, "

This is actually a line from the Simpsons in which Bart fills out a credit card application and they acsk for his income. Not quite sure how that makes one greedy anyway but hey why let facts get in the way it hasn't stopped you before.

[rinsd]

91. Of course you've been on the internet a long time

Which is why you are so easily figured out?

This unfamiliarity with netiquette seems to ebbs and flow depending on whether it suits your purpose.

The "challenge me to a fight" thing was basically a commonality on usenet and many discussion boards and is usually followed or preceded by your "give us your real name" gambit.

"I'm asking you to stand behind your accusations of who I am"

I do. Your asking me to reveal personal information will resolve that exactly how? Because if you know my name and address that will make my accusation more credible?

"I repeat, I am not three people, I am one, and my screen name is DantesPit"

One person, 3 screennames, not 3 people and one screenname. Jeez try to follow along here.

"But, being the greedy bastard on Fake Street that you are"

Someone who isn't acquainted with the Simpsons would probably think so.

"
That's just an idiotic request which only an idiot would offer as proof of their "sincerity." "

Yes...much better to get that name and address.

[xenu]

87. if he's a shitty scholar

he is surely not the only one. At least he publishes more than most of them.

What sort of teacher is he? Why are these things never factored into the equation? Who pays the bills here?

[rinsd]

89. There are plenty of shitty scholars....

Most of them involved in paid junk science.

[Moderator]

102. Lock

This two-week old thread is no longer breaking news.
Also locking for flames. Feel free to open a thead about this topic in another forum.