Churchill Updates 080307--Deranged Supporters Can't Spell, Ode To Churchill
**Update RMN columnist Mike Rosen discusses how a deranged Case Western Reserve University doctoral candidate and Churchill supporters equates CU's Regents to Nazis (and has difficulty spelling anything correctly), and how Churchill's dismissal has nothing to do with free speech:
"Subject: You are f**king nazi's (sic)
"It is IMPOSSIBLE to speak politely, intelligibly, with reason to moral cretins masquarding (sic) as humans, cretins utterly devoid of intelligence, humanity, common sense, courage: YOU ARE ALL F**KING NAZI'S (sic). May you and all your progeny burn in hell for eternity. Perhaps there is a special place there for nazi's (sic)."
The above e-mail was sent to all nine of the CU regents July 25, the day after their decision to fire Ward Churchill. The sender was one Paulette Sage, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Case Western Reserve University. Sage's spelling deficiencies and her ignorance of the difference between the plural and possessive is embarrassing enough, but her equating the CU regents with Nazis is positively idiotic.
Sadly, Sage typifies hysterical academic leftists distraught at Churchill's demise and appalled that one of their own tenured philosopher-kings could be held accountable for his behavior by administrators, taxpayers, tuition-paying customers, the community or even a panel of fellow academics.
Churchill will argue that no matter how offensive his speech, the First Amendment is designed expressly for the purpose of protecting his right to say it, and that faculty members especially must be able to speak and write unpopular views because their role is to stimulate free and open debate on cutting edge, controversial issues. He is right up to a point. Courts have granted more leeway to professors to say offensive things than they have accorded to administrators, on the theory that unrestrained exchange of ideas lies at the core of academic freedom.
However, there are outer limits. The University of Colorado should not have to tolerate speech which can reasonably be expected to cause serious disruptions of its normal operations. For example, there is an active ROTC program on campus. The university would have a legitimate concern that Churchill’s incitements to kill or maim military officers could threaten the peaceful functioning of this program and lead to further disruptions on campus.
Academic freedom must be accompanied by academic responsibility. Professor Churchill’s defamatory and incitement speech failed the test of First Amendment protection. He deserved to be fired on this basis alone. Of course, if the allegations against Churchill regarding plagiarism and other acts of misconduct turn out to be true, his firing is a no-brainer.
Despite the mountain of evidence against Churchill, it took more than two years for the wheels of justice to turn. As he received more due process than ordinary Americans ever receive in the course of their professional lives, Churchill's dogged fight to keep his job only reinforced for many the notion that faculty members view themselves as a breed apart - entitled to lucrative lifetime employment no matter what they do.
That will be Ward Churchill's lasting legacy. He was the tipping point. Now, it's not just leading conservatives who view the academy as an out-of-control, disconnected bastion of petulant entitlement. In a recent Zogby poll, 58 percent of Americans reported that they now believe that political bias of professors is a "serious problem." Even more, 65 percent, viewed non-tenured professors as more motivated to do a good job in the classroom.
These are not isolated findings. A survey by the American Association of University Professors found that 58.4 percent of Americans had only some or no confidence in our colleges and that 82 percent want to modify or eliminate tenure.
The academic left decries the "chilling effect" of Churchill's firing, but the only individuals who should feel "chilled" are those professors publicly spewing deranged invective at that same time that they conceal a professional past rife with fraud and abuse. In reality, there was no chilling effect in Churchill's case - only a cleansing effect as higher education scrubbed itself of the man who, more than anyone else, proved that something is very wrong with our universities.
Academics who view themselves, in French's words, "as a breed apart" should acknowledge that Churchill's dismissal was actually a demonstration that tenure should be restricted to those individual scholars whose high academic rigor bolsters their arguments in favor of employing just such a system. Guaranteed academic employment (barring academic misconduct such as Churchill's or "acts of moral turpitude") should come with some basic professional standards, just as membership in the legal or medical professions do. As the professors themselves are in charge of hiring and firing, they are entrusted with "policing their own", and in this case, the professors found Churchill's conduct wanting.
But why do so many professors from the left--those charging the public, the media, neocons, etc. with producing a "chilling effect" on free speech and academic discourse--fear Churchill's removal? Any clear-thinking individual who examines a scenario like this would determine that rather than having a deleterious effect on their profession, a removal like this would actually strengthen their claim to tenure's benefits, and further justify its existence.
In addition, why do these same critics find the whole process so unappealing (besides their own political motivations), and so threatening to their existence? They themselves are in charge--not politicians like former Gov. Bill Owens who called for Churchill's firing, nor state legislators, nor the public at large. Even the CU Regents and the President can not fire a professor until the due process review has been conducted. Are these professors really just afraid of each other? A bad review or denial of tenure can damage a career, so are many more deficiencies ignored or tacitly acknowledged in exchange for similar treatment down the line, an academic quid pro quo that mitigates worries about rival academics' abilities to throw another colleague under the bus? Maybe that explains at least some of the 199 named professors who called for the investigation of Churchill to be rescinded.
Stanley Kurtz, who calls for the abolition of tenure, has some thoughts on what would replace it, should academic reform ever be implemented:
What would replace tenure? Probably long-term contracts. I believe a few schools have already experimented with this. As noted, the change would be grandfathered in, and at best would only happen piecemeal. So prospects of a catastrophe would be slight, while there would be plenty of time for experimentation with new arrangements. But I guarantee you, even the slightest prospect of change (i.e. one state legislature seriously debating the end of tenure in its public university system) would send the professorate into a mad rage, and would provoke a major national debate about the state of higher education as a whole. That debate would provide an opening for all sorts of academic reforms, not limited to tenure.
More than anything else, the conversion of tenure from a protector of academic freedom into an instrument of ideological exclusion is responsible for the destruction of the campus marketplace of ideas. Tenure is the cornerstone of the campus political-correctness problem, and even beginning a serious effort to remove it would almost certainly shake up the entire academic system. The time to consider a serious campaign to eliminate academic tenure has come.
Replacing tenure, however, would not eliminate the type of wackademic frauds that typically find their way into places of higher learning, whether attracted by ideology or an escape from the real world of the marketplace of ideas to the insulated, ivory tower where proclamations that disdain the "unwashed masses" when they do not fall in line, are not only acceptable but encouraged. Restructuring or eliminating tenure would have a positive impact on the teaching at this country's universities, with more attractive compensation as the salaries are redistributed (the left should endorse that!) toward teaching load and quality (as reflected by peer and student reviews), and away from the sort of navel-gazing "research", extended sabbaticals, and diminished teaching loads that produces graduate student enmity and second-class status for non-tenured positions. Surely the entrenched left in the professoriate wouldn't mind a little redistributive justice and equality?
What should concern us all, however, is academia's nurturance of loons like the hate-filled Churchill. No, they are not many, but they shout louder than their numbers would suggest. And though their influence is minor in American higher education overall, they can be very influential in particular fields, such as comparative literature and gender and ethnic studies. That's because the problem on campuses isn't rigorous Marxist materialists, as conservative stereotypes would have you believe, but craven emotional warriors in the arena of identity politics.
Ethnic studies departments, such as Churchill's, may be the worst offenders. Created in the wake of the ethnic pride movement in the early 1970s, many simply never had the same kind of academic oversight as more established and prestigious fields. Those professors generally toiled with little funding in isolated intellectual ghettos. Their scholarship wasn't tested in the high-stakes, high-profile competition that hones other academics and other fields. They earned their "psychic income" -- a phrase coined by former Gov. Jerry Brown -- trying to turn minority undergraduates into activists. (Meanwhile, the quality work on ethnicity was being done in more traditional disciplines.)
But by most accounts, today's undergraduates of all backgrounds tend to be in search of good jobs rather than ideological causes. If anything, ethnic studies are part of the accepted last stage of American education, the puncturing of myths -- in elementary school, we learn that George Washington could not tell a lie; in high school, we learn the dates and details of Valley Forge; in college, we learn that the father of our country was a hypocritical slave owner; and then, after college, few ever think about Washington again.
Still, just because an academic field is relatively harmless and even irrelevant (in the eyes of many fellow academics) doesn't mean that shoddy professors who can't sort fact from ideology should be tolerated, particularly at taxpayer expense. The Churchill case might be closed, but university officials nationwide have an obligation to bring scrutiny and the ideal of objectivity to these below-par departments -- perhaps by dismantling and absorbing them into more rigorous disciplines and insisting, not on any one set of views or conclusions, but on the high standards of scholarship that we expect from the best of academia.
Local Republicans want Summit County's representative on CU's Board of Regents to better explain her reasons for casting the lone dissenting vote against dismissing controversial professor Ward Churchill.
The board voted 8-1 last week to fire Churchill, a tenured professor of ethnic studies, after determining he had "engaged in acts of research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification and plagiarism," according to a report from the regents.
Regent Cindy Carlisle, a Democrat who represents Summit, Eagle, Clear Creek, Grand, Gilpin and Boulder counties, was the only regent who didn't support Churchill's dismissal.
"If Ms. Carlisle could not vote to fire Professor Ward Churchill despite the overwhelming evidence of his academic fraud and misconduct, we would also ask her to explain what circumstances would lead her to recommend that a tenured faculty member be fired," said Summit County GOP chairwoman Debra Irvine.
**This is a sticky post, continuously updated throughout the day. Scroll for pictures and video--
Verdict is in, Ward is out! --8-to-1, lone dissenting vote Cindy Carlisle, a Democrat "We will remain accountable to those who have high expectations of Colorado’s flagship university. And our faculty will remain true to high professional standards to ensure our reputation for academic integrity remains intact."--CU President Hank Brown, in a letter to the CU community, CU Boulder Chancellor "Bud" Peterson's statement
In front of about 30 people, many of them with cameras and tape recorders, former AIM leadership council member Dillabaugh (who said he'd been in jail and didn't care if he had to go back) threatened to kill me. PB and Drunkablog friend Laurie was a witness, as was Ken Bonetti, who said something like "now, none of that."
"The more the public sees, the more the public knows, the more they will realize that this is political maneuver and that Ward Churchill's termination is based solely on his free speech," he said.
Laurie McClure, 56, of Firestone, whose daughter Bonnie graduated in May with a history degree, was passing out fliers this morning on the topic of research misconduct.
She said her daughter's degree has been diminished because of the negative publicity surrounding the Churchill case and his ties to the campus.
She said the case isn't about his political views.
"This is about a tenured professor who doesn't know how to do proper research," McClure said. "And it's about a tenured professor who doesn't have a Ph.D."
Academic freedom DOES NOT mean academic fraud.Those aren't my words (though I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiment). That was a comment on Churchill from the moonbats at DailyKos.
CU's streaming audio experienced "technical difficulties" this morning. They promise to have things running this afternoon, but Slapstick Politics will be there in person to provide backup.
Ward Churchill entered the University Memorial Center at 7:45 today — the day he'll learn his fate as a CU professor.
About 20 supporters accompanied Churchill and his attorney, David Lane, into a morning meeting in UMC room 235 with the CU Board of Regents.
At least a dozen reporters and photographers were on hand to chronicle a pivotal chapter in the 21/2-year controversy.
Lane attacked the Regents for their closed meeting in the last chapter of the Churchill affair--"When you shine light on the cockroaches, they scramble for cover"--(for a moment I thought he was referring to his own client!).
Earlier:
Ward Churchill smiles in happier days, but his contempt for academic standards and the disdain displayed by his most ardent supporters will be tested today. (courtesy CU College Republicans)
Hilliard said that as a matter of security, he couldn't discuss the measures university officials will put in place today, nor could he comment on any changes in the levels of police and security guard staffing.
"We feel good about the level of security that we have," Hilliard said. "What we have to do is provide safety for the public to express their opinions, and safety for the board to get their business done."
CU Regent Pat Hayes, chairwoman of the board, said she hopes the day goes smoothly.
"We are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst," she said.
Ward's followers "promise" to be peaceful. We remain skeptical.
All it takes is a vote of the regents and a tenured professor is gone. They're making quite a show of trying to be fair and impartial. This has been scripted. This has been in the works for months and months.
I have no doubt they're going to fire him. And it's based — in fact if you read all the reports generated by all the investigators, you will acknowledge that each report has said this is all motivated by his 9/11 comments. There would have been no investigations. There would have been no action. There would have been nothing but for his 9/11 comments. That's why I'm so eager to take this into court.
Try two-and-a-half years Mr. Lane. This is quite the political theater to "take down" a tenured professor--a process lasting over 30 months. A process so interminable, bureaucratized, and politicized that CU's Regents vowed to expedite the tenure removal process, limited to a mere 100 days to "reduce the human misery involved".
Rules on how professors are granted tenure - and how they can lose it - have been tightened at the University of Colorado since Ward Churchill was given the job guarantee in 1991.
Churchill was granted tenure without the usual six years of review because administrators saw him as bringing ethnic diversity to the faculty, several professors have said. As it turned out, Churchill is not an American Indian, as he claimed.
New rules require strict review by administrators to be sure a tenure candidate has cleared all the hurdles - including vetting of his or her published works by outside experts.
Pat Hayes, who chairs CU's Board of Regents, said the board then reviews the process.
"We get their paperwork and we go through it and we look at how each one of those committees looked at that particular person in relationship to tenure. We go through the whole thing," Hayes said.
If one or more faculty members on a review committee opposes tenure for a candidate, the regents ask questions, Hayes said.
Churchill was given tenure in the communications department over the objections of several faculty members. Two other departments rejected him.
The review of tenured professors at five-year intervals - a perfunctory exercise in some departments - has been tightened, and the procedure to dismiss faculty members has been streamlined.
Let us hope that CU can avoid future debacles by refusing to grant the Holy Grail of academia--tenure--to crackpots whose political views happen to be fashionable and are indeed encouraged in a climate devoted to multiculturalism and diversity at the cost of academic integrity.
If Churchill is dismissed, his severance pay will be one year's salary, currently $96,392. It was not immediately clear if he will continue to receive benefits such as health insurance or employer's contributions to his retirement plan, said CU Vice President Ken McConnellogue.
The money already in his retirement fund won't be affected.
He has continued to receive his salary, although he has not taught since the fall 2005 semester. Part of the time, he was on sabbatical, and he also used compensatory time off he'd accumulated for teaching extra courses in previous semesters. More recently, he has been on paid leave.
He has received the due process from the CU system (innocent until proven guilty, something he denied to the targets of his political diatribes), and will likely find his legal arguments for a lawsuit fall on deaf ears (Churchill timeline):
Churchill has vowed to sue if he is fired. Legal scholars have given him little chance of prevailing in court: Judges usually defer to governing boards on personnel matters, particularly when due process has been followed.
The regents and Brown have done precisely that, said RL Widmann, an English professor who leads CU's faculty council.
About 25 faculty members have been involved in reviewing the charges against Churchill during the various stages of the investigation, Widmann said.
The regents will be closeted with a special counsel assigned by the state attorney general's office as they discuss possible actions.
Churchill has been found guilty of manufacturing historical events, plagiarism, and falsifying sources. Those aren't good arguments for an appeal.
You can search this blog's archives on the professor. For dedicated 24/7 Wardo coverage, blogger PirateBallerina's enormous body of work on Ward Churchill can't be found (or duplicated) anywhere else. If one were so inclined, weeks could be spent scouring his archives on the infamous professor. Props also go to the Drunkablog, who has spent his fair share of time in the trenches against Churchill and his minions.
CU President Hank Brown's Letter To The CU Community
Not available at the CU site (modified, but not in this form):
July 24, 2007
Dear Faculty, Staff and Students of the University of Colorado,
The Board of Regents today voted to accept my recommendation to dismiss Professor Ward Churchill from the faculty.
I made the recommendation for the good of the university. CU’s success depends upon its reputation for academic integrity. A public research university such as ours requires public faith that each faculty member’s professional activities and search for truth are conducted according to the high standards on which CU’s reputation rests.
We are accountable to those who have a stake in the university: the people of Colorado who contribute $200 million annually in tax dollars, the federal entities that provide some $640 million annually in research funding, the donors who gave us more than $130 million this year to enhance academic quality, the alumni who want to maintain the value of their degrees, the faculty and staff who expect their colleagues to act with integrity, and the students who trust that faculty who teach them meet the high professional standards of the university and the profession.
Given the record of the case and findings of Professor Churchill’s faculty peers, I determined that allowing him to remain on the faculty would cast a shadow on our reputation for academic integrity.
Throughout the case, we have adhered to shared governance procedures as determined by the CU Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws and adopted by the Board of Regents. During the course of two-plus years, Professor Churchill presented his position in writing, in person, with his attorney and with witnesses of his choosing. He was afforded full due process.
More than 20 tenured faculty members (from CU and other universities) on three separate panels conducted a thorough review of his work and found that the evidence shows Professor Churchill engaged in research misconduct, and that it required serious sanction. The record of the case shows a pattern of serious, repeated and deliberate research misconduct that falls below the minimum standard of professional integrity, including fabrication, falsification, improper citation and plagiarism. No university can abide such serious academic misconduct.
Professor Churchill fabricated historical events and sought to support his fabrications by manufacturing articles under other names. His publications show more than just sloppy citations or using the work of others without crediting them. The Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct found multiple instances of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. Any student engaging in such a wide range of academic misconduct would be seriously sanctioned. We should hold our faculty to a high standard of professionalism
While Professor Churchill’s peers on the faculty panels were unanimous in finding research misconduct, views on the appropriate sanction varied. Some faculty recommended dismissal while others suggested a less severe penalty. My obligation as president is to recommend to the Board of Regents an appropriate sanction that is for the good of the university.
Some on the Boulder campus and beyond claim Professor Churchill was singled out because of public condemnation of his writing about September 11, 2001. They see this case as a referendum on academic freedom. The university determined early in the process that his speech was not at issue, but that his research was. The prohibition against research misconduct extends to all faculty, regardless of their political views. We cannot abandon our professional standards and exempt faculty members from being accountable for the integrity of their research simply because their views are controversial.
Professor Churchill’s activities not only run counter to the essence of academic freedom, but also threaten its foundation. Academic freedom is intended to protect the exploration and teaching of unpopular, even controversial ideas. But that pursuit must be accompanied by the standards of the profession. Academic freedom does not protect research misconduct. After his research misconduct was identified, Professor Churchill did not admit any errors or come forward to correct the record, as is expected in the profession.
CU’s most important asset is its academic reputation. Professor Churchill’s actions reflect poorly on the University of Colorado, but we will not let the research misconduct of one individual tarnish our reputation. Our faculty members take pride in their work and demonstrate their respect for the high standards of their profession and this university day in and day out. Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is an affront to those who conduct themselves with integrity.
We will remain accountable to those who have high expectations of Colorado’s flagship university. And our faculty will remain true to high professional standards to ensure our reputation for academic integrity remains intact.
Want to contribute? Visit our store for conservative gear for 2008! "A lot of guys yearning for adventure and romance would give their left one to be referred to in print as a man "who identified himself only as 'El Presidente.'" Nobody, for example, is ever going to refer to me as a man who "identified himself only as El Presidente." You bastard."--Drunkablog
