Posted on 05/17/2005 9:43:57 AM PDT by AdamSelene235
Prof defends academic work with 50 pages in response to criticism
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News May 17, 2005
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill on Monday submitted his response to the faculty committee that is investigating whether he committed research misconduct and should lose his tenured teaching position.
His attorney, David Lane, said a response of more than 50 pages, single-spaced, was delivered to a committee representative Monday afternoon.
Lane said that Churchill answered each and every point on which his past scholarship and academic credentials have been challenged.
"He responded to everything, including the absolutely unconstitutional inquiry into his ethnicity," Lane said.
Churchill took "an interesting position," Lane said, on whether he has fabricated an American Indian heritage to gain greater acceptance and credibility for his writings on Indian issues.
"He thinks it would be equally offensive for them (the faculty committee) to certify him as an Indian, as it would be to say he's not an Indian - but he showed conclusive proof to say he is Native American; but he is telling them it's none of their business. And I don't see it as constitutionally their place, to prove his pedigree."
Lane said that federal law provides four points on which American Indian status can be legally claimed, and that Churchill can satisfy at least three.
One, Lane said, is how a person self-identifies. Churchill has identified himself as an Indian - by at least one recent account - since he was 10.
A second method is through community acceptance and recognition. Churchill points to the passionate rally around him by American Indians, including actor/activist Russell Means, during his speaking engagement on the CU campus Feb. 8, as evidence of meeting that test.
Enrollment in a tribe is a third qualification Churchill cites to CU - the "smoking gun" in Lane's words. Specifically, Churchill points to the associate membership awarded him in 1994 by the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Tahlequah, Okla.
Churchill and Lane insist that associate membership is more significant than the "honorary" membership the same tribe once gave President Clinton. Several tribal members, however, say there is no difference between the two.
Churchill's case was referred by interim chancellor Phil DiStefano on March 24 to CU's standing committee on research misconduct. The committee was asked to consider five specific points in determining whether a full investigation should be launched that could lead to dismissal or other disciplinary action.
Work, conduct in spotlight
The areas deserving of inquiry in the eyes of CU administrators are twofold.
One centers on allegations that Churchill has engaged in plagiarism, falsification and fabrication.
Second, the committee is examining whether the ethnic studies professor committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself to be an American Indian to gain credibility and a wider audience for his scholarly writings and speeches.
Lane said that Churchill provides a clear and conclusive defense to every allegation of plagiarism or academic misconduct that has been raised by the faculty committee.
The investigation into Churchill's record was triggered by a wave of bitter controversy that washed over CU and and the state of Colorado in January.
That's when it came to light that Churchill, in an essay on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, characterized some victims in the World Trade Center as "Little Eichmanns," reaping the bloody harvest of an aggressively violent U.S. foreign policy.
A six-week CU investigation determined that Churchill's often incendiary political discourse, including comparing 9/11 victims to a notorious Nazi, was protected speech for which CU should not, and could not, punish him.
"The nature and content of professor Churchill's speech does not exceed the boundaries of a public employee's protected speech," DiStefano said. "As repugnant as his statements are to many in the university community, however, they are protected by the First Amendment.
The research misconduct committee reported to Churchill on April 22 that he had 14 days in which to respond to the remaining allegations under their review.
Churchill sought, and received, an extension so that responding to the committee would not interfere with final exams and the grading of papers. Monday was his new deadline.
The inquiry committee, a subgroup appointed by the full research misconduct committee, now has 60 days to investigate the allegations, and Churchill's responses, dating from the day last month that it officially put Churchill on notice he was under review.
That means that by about June 21, the inquiry committee will be called upon to decide by simple majority vote whether sufficient credible evidence exists to warrant a full investigation by the faculty's full standing committee, on any or all of the allegations.
LOL.....Very good! You have proven that one does not need to be long winded to make their point and make it well.
I have one basic question: Did he write these things, say these things as an employee of the university? If so, I don't think the 1st Amendment applies at all. IIRC, the byline of the essay included something like "Ward Churchill is professor of American Indian Studies at UC Boulder," so I would think he was doing it as a public employee.
Does he think quotas, affirmative action, minority contract requirements, "diversity" officers and minority-based scholarships are unconstitutional as well?
bookmk ping
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.