Skip to comments.'Churchill effect' may chill field ( Lazy Professors not doing thorough research )
Posted on 05/22/2006 8:21:58 AM PDT by george76
Ethnic studies a relatively new field could be harmed by the plagiarized passages and made-up facts discovered in University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's work, a panel found.
But scholars of ethnic studies, and those who have been closely watching the investigation, have varying opinions on whether there will be a "Churchill effect" on the field.
The stinging report that became public last week rejected Churchill's assertion that there are different research standards for ethnic studies scholars.
Panel members also found that the tenured professor strayed from the "bedrock principles" of scholarship.
The five-member investigative panel arrived at its conclusion that Churchill's patterns of academic misconduct were "serious" largely by looking at the damaging effect his misconduct has on his colleagues at CU and those who study American Indian issues.
Vernon Bellecourt, a senior leader from the Minneapolis-based American Indian Movement, said Churchill's work does irreparable harm to the cause and discredits the scholarly work of others.
"We really think his work is an attack on academia," Bellecourt said.
"I'm also concerned about all the students particularly Native American students who have gone through Churchill's classes and were exposed to his shoddy research."
Scholars who have cited Churchill are "innocent" because they did not know Churchill fabricated information, but they also could have done more thorough research, said Tom Brown, a sociology professor at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycamera.com ...
Why do leftwing ideas and viewpoints continue to have ANY credibility?
It's the Academy's own fault for tolerating this joke of a professor all these years. They certainly must be aware of the dishonesty and shoddy work, but their standards revolve around political correctness rather than truth and scholarship. And the only reason they are now going to discipline Prof. Churchill is because he happened to go one step too far and make a public comment about 9/11 that incensed the general public. If he had just been a little bit less quieter, he'd still be peddling his poison without restraint.
"Ethnic studies a relatively new field could be harmed by the plagiarized passages..."
Harmed? Did anyone really think that most of these classes were anything more than a sop to special interests to begin with?
"Why do leftwing ideas and viewpoints continue to have ANY credibility?"
Well, ask the question the police ask why crime is committed, "Who benefits?" All of the people you mentioned were contributing to the destruction of American society. It therefore follows logically that the beneficiary must be outside of America. How about Russia?
"So-who DIDN'T know Churchill was a fraud? Yet he was promotied to full professor AFTER 1997, and then eventually to Chair of his Department. One needs to investigate why. Were they physically afraid of him? Were they afraid of the criticism they would receive from his supporters if they objected? Were they so supportive (or afraid) of his politics that this trumped any doubts about his worth as a scholar?"
This is impressive.
"Churchill's assertion that there are different research standards for ethnic studies scholars."
I went to school with hundreds of people who believed this field-style of studies (womens, black etc..) to be every bit as scientifically correct as Chemistry and Calculus.
I don't think Churchill can count on the real Indians to come to his aid. Most of what I've read says they are very angry with this white-eyes impostor.
For years, the real American Indian scholars have complained that Ward was not an Indian and that he did not speak for them.
Ward only speaks for the white, we hate America professors with tenure.
Eleven real American Indians applied for the university job, but the university only interviewed Ward and one other. I guess that the other 10 did not hate America enough to even get an interview.
In the 1980's a young son of some friends was in a California University enrolled in a a hard science/business major.
The PC Professors forced the university to mandate a few PC courses for each potential graduate. This insured them of jobs and eventually tenure like with Ward Churchill, Faux Cherokee and Professor.
This young man was forced to take one of these courses and he took something like great Hispanic Literature in America.
On the midterm PC professor asked the students to name at least one great Hispanic Writing and to expand on it. The young man said that he hadn't been in LA or San Francisco to read the gang graffite on buildings and signs for years. So he couldn't really answer the question.
All hell broke loose when the PC A$$hole Professor went ballistic and demanded the young man be expelled unless he apologized. A compromise was reached after the dad and his brothers who were grads of this university, and a conservative lawyer gave the deans some options they couldn't refuse. The lad got D and didn't have to come to any more of the brainwashing from the PC Professor. The D became a badge of honor with his A's and a few B's in future job interviews.
Ethnic Studies belongs on the same ash heap with "hate crime" legislation. Both are modern day re-writes of history.
Don't think that any humanities field is any different. They are all just like this. All of them.
""Churchill's assertion that there are different research standards for ethnic studies scholars."
Like they can lie, spin, make up data and of course plagerize for their thesis.
Those of us with advanced degrees in real studies from real universities had real standards for our research and our final thesis. We knew that if we lied, spinned, fantasized or plagerised, our degree could/would be revoked years or decades later and the reality came out. If those standards had been applied to the Churchill's and other left wing PC, masters and doctoral candidates, they would never have become PHDs and professors.
Yeah, just believing it does not make these people right.
My buddy and I went to rent a video the other day,and came across a DVD on West Point. Hmm. That looks interesting, we thought.
When we turned it on, the PBS logo came up, and we looked at each other, shrugged our shoulders and thought..."Hey, it is about West Point...how bad could they screw it up?"
As the actual video began to play, they showed cadets doing various things at West Point...Two black cadets...an Asian cadet...a hispanic cadet and a woman, a white guy, a black guy and a white guy, a hispanic guy and a black guy...more women, etc...etc.
Of course, they spent ten times the attention on the first black cadet to graduate than they did on General George S. Patton, probably 20 times as much on women, and 50 times as much on how flawed the institution was with things like hazing, low standards and such.
The high point was obviously the Kennedy presidency, and all men wanted to go into either West Point or the Peace Corps, and how the men who went into both were made up of the same stuff...then Kennedy was killed.
Here is the transition into the Vietnam era, with the low, ominous quagmire music, burning palm trees, wounded GIs, GI's mistreating prisoners and so on. They talked about how mistreated and demoralized West Pointers became, going to football games and being called "baby killers", having to wear wigs off campus, and so on.
The thing that INFURIATED me about this was these scumbags who made this PBS "documentary" talk about the mistreatment of West Pointers and our military as if the stigmatization and mistreatment is some kind of thing they had no hand in...something that someone "else" did to our troops.
I am still steaming from watching it.
I should explain what got me off on that track...it seems somewhat disconnected, but I don't think it is. It all boils down to Political Correctness, and how it affects all aspects of academia.
The hiring and tenure granting to the these worthless people and making their garbage, mandatory classes is one of the main reasons, the cost of going to colleges/universities is so expensive.
Thanks. BTW, tune in to Michael Medved's show today, 4-5 and I'll be on, and on "Fox and Friends" tomorrow morning, somewhere around 6:15 EST.
That's fine arts. It's not judged on standards of "research".
Tenure really means keeping the lazy bums who could never get nor keep a real job in the real world.
Many only work 5 hours per week, get the summer and every holiday invented off ( paid ), great benefits like free health care, discounted housing, lovely retirement plans...plus $100,00 per year.
Then then can get book deals, speaking fees...
All thanks to the taxpayers. And they hate the taxpayers.
Don't forget other motivations. Accrediting agencies have been forcing multiculturalism for some time now.
And, of course, universities that care about racial and gender balance (and even though 60% of students are women, "gender balance" means getting more women in the sciences and engineering and racial balance doesn't count Asians of any stripe) figure the easiest way to get it is to have racial- or gender-based areas of study.
Plain old history departments tend to have a lot of white guys.
When it's in reality a one-semester undergraduate sociology course blown up into a full academic department.
Why the expect anyone to believe them about anything at all with that track-record boggles the sane mind.
As George Bernard Shaw once brilliantly observed...
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
Thanks for the feedback.
At age 67, I'm out of the university world.
Most of our younger relatives, nieces, nephews and cousins are in their mid 30's, late 30's and early 40's. The ones who have children entering college age or about to are very concerned about what their children will face.
Re the old white guys in history departments, even in the late 1950's/early 1960's, the old white haired guys in history and political science for the most part were liberal democrats.
That is why there should not be tenure. The lazy ones should know that they will re-enter the real world with us.
"When it's in reality a one-semester undergraduate sociology course blown up into a full academic department."
My son and some his cousins, (my nephews and nieces) labeled them BS Instant Unemployment Degrees. The only way they could get a job with those degrees was to work on their masters on the way to getting Phds to teach the same required bs to other students forced to take these courses.
A lot of what passes for "science" today is just posturing intended for 1 of 2 purposes:
1) Pushing a political agenda
2) Getting more grant money
Pure, honest, ethical science still exists out there. But I'm skeptical about a lot of what passes for "science".
"When it's in reality a one-semester undergraduate sociology course blown up into a full academic department."
With the exception of water fluoridation? If I remember, National Lampoon once proved without a doubt using a flow chart the link between fluoridation and communism.
Did you notice that the one who addressed you referred to "womens, blacks" - perhaps an argument for remedial education but not "cake" couses like ethnic studies.
Sad, but true for most of the classes in the humanities these days.
Wow. Anyone who thinks that Churchill has harmed the *cough* academic integrity of the "studies" curricula is kidding himself. These are not fields of scholarship, they are political grievances.
"... and those that can't teach, teach gym."
- Woody Allen
Ward could not even teach Gym.
Gym has more academic integrity than the "studies" curricula.
Because having to document and research would hurt their feelings, so it must be banned.