original artwork drawn by the late artist Thomas E. Mails
Art signed by Prof. Ward Churchill
Bear in mind that CU didn't even get into his art fraud.
Posted on 06/27/2006 9:16:18 PM PDT by SmithL
Tonight, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill issued a statement defending his scholarship and threatening the school for attempting to fire him.
CU announced on Monday a decision to terminate Churchill, who began to be investigated for academic misconduct after an essay he wrote compared victims of the September 11th terrorist attack to an infamous Nazi.
Statement released Tuesday by University of Colorado-Boulder professor Ward Churchill:
It was quite predictable that Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano would recommend that I be fired from my tenured professorship at the University of Colorado/Boulder. After all, he was effectively ordered to find some "legally defensible" basis for doing so by Colorado Governor Bill Owens.
In pursuit of this purely political objective, the interim chancellor has at this point expended more than a year and upwards of $250,000 in taxpayer monies.
For all that, he has failed.
Certain facts about my case simply cannot be denied: 1. Interim Chancellor DiStefano joined Governor Owens and several Colorado legislators in publicly and repeatedly denouncing me on explicitly ideological grounds, thereby making his personal biases abundantly clear.
2. In direct violation of the Laws of the Regents of the University of Colorado concerning Academic Freedom, the interim chancellor took the unprecedented step of creating and chairing a special committee devoted to investigating the political content of my scholarship.
3. He and/or his surrogates on this special committee actively solicited allegations of "research misconduct" against me, contriving to cast the impression through the media that these allegations were independently and voluntarily submitted by the scholars involved.
4. Since this produced a "shot-gun load" of allegations but no actual complainants, Interim Chancellor DiStefano named himself complainant without, by his own admission, even bothering to read much of what he was supposedly alleging.
5. Throughout this process the interim chancellor routinely violated the confidentiality rules concerning personnel matters in the CU system, issuing numerous press releases designed to sustain the media "feeding frenzy," subjecting me to "trial by news media," and denying my rights to privacy and due process.
6. Having thus virtually guaranteed that faculty members at the University of Colorado could not be neutral, the interim chancellor/complainant then used his administrative influence to ensure that my request for an investigative panel composed exclusively of persons external to CU was denied. Consequently 3 of 5 panel members, including its chair, were drawn from the Boulder faculty. As predicted, serious questions concerning the impartiality of 2 of these internal panelists have come to light, and more can be expected.
7. Similarly, my repeated requests that the investigative panel include acknowledged experts in the relevant subject areas were ignored. Ultimately, 4 of the 5 panelists professed no specific knowledge whatsoever concerning either the procedures employed within my discipline or the topics under discussion. So much for the pretense that the merits of my work have been assessed by my peers.
The investigative report produced by the panel, while voluminous, misses the mark entirely.
The panelists were required by the rules to restrict their inquiry to whether I actually committed fraud and plagiarism.
Instead, they indulged in a repetition of the "Scopes Monkey Trial," presuming to assert the "truth" of the various historical and legal questions involved, in a manner comfortable to themselves and to those they seemingly perceive as comprising the "American mainstream." Such enforcement of orthodoxy was plainly not within the panels legitimate mandate.
Indeed, as regards the allegations of fraud raised by Interim Chancellor DiStefano, whether what I wrote is true or false is irrelevant. The ONLY relevant consideration is whether I had reason to believe it was true.
On this score, I did, and still do, and the panel proved nothing to the contrary. This is amply reflected in the evidence the panel left largely unaddressed in its report. Much the same pertains to my having supposedly "invented" historical incidents, and the alleged implications of my ghostwriting.
As to the panels findings that by a "preponderance of the evidence" I twice engaged in plagiarism, a simple question presents itself: What, exactly, is a "preponderance" of no evidence at all? Of course, the report produced by the investigative panel is designed to make the opposite of all this seem true. In fact, it seems reasonable to suggest that the very length of the document was meant to obscure its lack of substance.
Two observations support this conclusion: 1. In order to conclude that I engaged in research misconduct, the panelists, collectively, severely distort certain of their sources, omit mention of material inconvenient to their conclusions, cite themselves as the sole authority confirming many of their points, and occasionally engage in outright fabrication.
In fact, each kind of academic misconduct the interim chancellors carefully-selected panel claims I committed is engaged in by the panel itself in the writing of its report. (One of the panelists even takes credit for authoring a work unquestionably written by another scholar.) In the face of all this, it becomes apparent that the panelists arrived at their conclusions before the fact, the orchestrated their data accordingly. In other words, to borrow the panels own term, their report was clearly "thesis-driven." Paraphrasing them again, it means they "dont understand the difference between scholarship and polemic," and have produced a report consisting of "propaganda rather than scholarship." 2. Even if the allegations at issue were true and they certainly are not they do not constitute offenses for which faculty members can, under any ordinary circumstances, be terminated. The panel, the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (SCRM) which endorsed its report, and the interim chancellor all thus resorted to the argument that I could/should be fired, not for what I did, but because I have refused to recant. In other words, it is my "attitude" which justifies the severity of the recommended sanctions.
This, then, is the backdrop against which Interim Chancellor DiStefanos "news flash" that I should be fired must be understood.
From start to finish, the interim chancellors blatant conflicts of interest not to mention the political nature of his biases have been obvious to anyone who cared to view the matter honestly. So, too, the ways in which he has manipulated the process at every step in order to guarantee the outcome he announced on Monday, June 26.
The interim vice chancellors strikingly duplicitous comportment over the past 16 months will not go unchallenged. I will file an appeal of the whole charade with the Faculty Senates Committee on Privilege and Tenure (P&T) within the next 10 days.
Far from putting the "final touches to the Churchill story," as fantasized on Denver editorial pages, the interim chancellors elaborate subterfuge has merely set the stage for the taxpayers to waste another quarter-million dollars while I go through the P&T process.
Hopefully, the members of P&T who review my case will display the sort of integrity conspicuously lacking in their predecessors on the investigative panel and the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.
That would do much to constrain the magnitude of damage sustained by the University - and consequently the taxpayers - when my case goes to court, as it ultimately will.
- Ward Churchill Boulder, Colorado June 27, 2006
"Tonight, embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill issued a statement defending his scholarship and threatening the school for attempting to fire him."
What is this "attempt" crud?
YOU'RE FIRED!
Get out and never darken these halls again!
SEEYABYE
"Instead, they indulged in a repetition of the "Scopes Monkey Trial," presuming to assert the "truth" of the various historical and legal questions involved, in a manner comfortable to themselves and to those they seemingly perceive as comprising the "American mainstream.""
What a surprise. He doesn't know anything about the Scopes trial either.
original artwork drawn by the late artist Thomas E. Mails
Art signed by Prof. Ward Churchill
Bear in mind that CU didn't even get into his art fraud.
Churchill is poster-weasel for the End Tenure movement.
I sincerely wish this POS would just go out and hang himself
LOL!
I didnt know there were that many left handed indians in the world much less all in one battle like that :-)
My, my, such a bad attitude. Fire him for that too. As part Cherokee I'm ashamed he claims to be part Cherokee, chuckle.
Indian Princess "Dances with Baloney" ponders defeat, failure and unemployment...
"I'm not really an Indian Princess, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night..."
All he wrote is totally irrelevant to whether or not he engaged in research misconduct.
Did he plagiarize?
They've got the examples from Churchill and the places from which he copied.
Whether you were fired or not is also irrelevant. The ONLY relevant consideration is that a liar like you is not teaching.....but please try Berkeley. They are always hiring elitist lying @ssholes.
Now if some Freeper could just use these two images, with the fraudulent one mirror-imaged, in an animated overlay, that would be fun to have. At least then most of the Indians would appear right-handed.
I just loved seeing Dan Rather's memo alternating with the easy-to-create copy. It helped illustrate that the fraud was not just similar to the re-creation, but virtually lacked any differences. Every detail lined up.
Churchill could try to claim that he was "inspired" by the original, but the alignment of virtually every detail will reveal that there was no artistic contribution from Churchill whatever. It is an outright fraud.
The Undead
Under his arguments, since he can believe anything he wants, there is no such thing as research misconduct!
Clever.
But how does that excuse blatant lies in his footnotes, clearly proven by the report and not addressed in his rebuttal at all?
D
He claimed the original artist gave him permission to use his painting. A claim that cannot be substantiated because the original artist is dead, but his son claims he would never have given such permission.
thats an awful long reply to a humongous document that just came out that same day- when did he have a chance to read it and to compose this lengthy letter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.