Ward Churchhill has just been fire from CU.

Source: live feed

This is a live feed of the school board.

Read more: http://media.myfoxcolorado.com/live/index.html

He did something stupid, but from what I remember, his students like him A LOT.

I bet a lot of his students are gone now, and have moved on with their lives. Students have notoriously short-term memories.

What Churchill did was stupid, but he had quite a following, and some of those students are still there.

He doesn't give homework, there aren't any tests. They probably hang out with him at the local clubs and BS about how the "man" is keeping them down.

Those were extremely good years spent in the on-campus Cal State University Long Beach drinking establishment!

We B.S.'d about how The Man was keeping us down (I didn't inhale - or even SEE pot)!

;) :hippie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs9FupCmWko&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emypetjawa%2Emu%2Enu%2F
nothing to add to his defense but foul language.

Here he comments on how "his people" are being repressed by DNA testing


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eixiph28_os&mode=related&search=

There are huge red flags concering his claim to be 1/32 or 1/64 Native American. I am sure he fears the truth coming out if he were ever exposed to a DNA test.

No Ph.D. and a Masters in a subject unrelated to his discipline from a mediocre state school in Illinois.

Now CU should do an investigation into how this guy was hired, and rose through the ranks so quickly.

If I remember correctly, he claimed to be part native american, but he is not. Someone check my statements.

oh wait. Free speech does not mean you are not accountable for saying really stupid stuff.

way, which is something a good professor does to keep students interested, but I recall his facts being in order nonetheless.

His 9/11 comments are well known. I see no need to repeat them. He is a plagiarist, and claimed american indian heritage, when in fact, he has none.

Winter Attack..is a good place to start.

Tell the world that YOU believe the official 9-11 myth.

little Eichmann's was a great start. Being a lying plagiarizing moron is what cost him his job.
You can search my comments for my opinion on 9/11.

young warriors for David Horowitz found his writing online (something that he should not have placed online, let alone left there).

"...lying plagiarzing moron"-- thanks for your concern.

:rofl:

Amazing, ain't it?

was not only stupid but downright outrageously offensive to ALL Americans. It wasn't regarding "the 9/11 story". It was about the people murdered in the attacks:

"As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

He then went on to refer to them as "little Eichmans". I'm with just about everyone else on this forum; this guy is a scumbag.

While I don't agree with 'MIHOP'-type theories, people have a right to express their views at that level. But this is on a totally different level: attacking the victims. Some of his students might have been friends or relatives of the people attacked.

Of course, let's not forget that some powerful religious leaders such as Falwell and Robertson also made foul remarks about 9-11 and its causes.

He plagiarized others works as his own.

sources. Maybe there's more I need to know.

More than 20 tenured faculty members (from CU and other universities) on three separate panels conducted a thorough review of Professor Churchill’s work and agreed that the evidence shows he engaged in research misconduct, which requires 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 condone such serious misconduct.

The case adhered to the shared governance procedures 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 had many opportunities to present his position in writing, in person, with his attorney and with witnesses of his choosing. He was afforded full due process.

At issue was the quality of his research, not the controversial statements he made about September 11, 2001. Professor Churchill has the same right to make controversial statements as any citizen of the United States. The university recognized that right early in the process. But the prohibition against research misconduct applies to all faculty members, regardless of their political views.

https://www.cu.edu/churchillcase/index.html

I have taken the trouble to cut the part about his essay sock puppets.........pg23 and pg24

The other two apparently independent third-party sources cited in footnotes 63 and 64 are essays published in the same volume, The State of Native America, one under the name of a person named Rebecca Robbins and the other under the name of M. Annette Jaimes, the editor of the volume.33 Since both essays do contain statements of the type that Professor Churchill claims,that might have put an end to the matter of research misconduct regarding this allegation, except for the fact that in response to the separate allegation that he had plagiarized the Robbins essay in another later published piece, Professor Churchill said in Submission E that he had in fact ghostwritten both the Robbins and the Jaimes essays, in full. He continued to adhere to that position in his discussion with our Committee, claiming that he wrote both pieces “from the ground up.”34 LaVelle’s 1999 article had noted similarities in the writing style between several of the essays in The State of Native America and Professor Churchill’s other works, questioning Professor Churchill’s role in their creation.35 Professor LaVelle apparently was unaware that at the time of the publication of her essay, Jaimes was the wife of Professor Churchill, and that Churchill not only contributed to that volume, but appears to have written under his own or a different name almost half the essays in it. Through legal counsel, both Rebecca Robbins and M. Annette Jaimes declined to speak with this Committee and, therefore, the Committee has no reason to doubt Professor Churchill’s claims, suspected by Professor LaVelle, that he personally authored both the Robbins and the Jaimes papers in their entirety and it so finds by a preponderance of the evidence. That finding, however, constitutes a serious problem of research misconduct.
The initial support for the disputed statement involved three independent sources. As already noted, the Act does not expressly provide what Professor Churchill claims and therefore can provide no support for his claims whatsoever. The two other apparently independent third-party sources, the Robbins and Jaimes essays, turn out not to be independent sources at all but, rather, to have been ghostwritten in their entirety by Professor Churchill. This action provided him with apparent independent sources that he could and did in fact cite to support otherwise insupportable claims of legal and historical fact. In short, when one carefully dissects the Churchill claim quoted in the original allegation, the three apparently independent third-party sources dissolve into one source (the Act) that clearly does not expressly support his claim, and two other sources (the Robbins and Jaimes chapters) that he wrote himself. Although Professor Churchill purported to offer his claims as supported by research, based on independent sources, it turns out that the claims not only cannot be supported but that he has misrepresented the independent nature of his sources employed to buttress the unsupportable details of his conclusions. Were Professor Churchill a scientist, rather than a researcher engaged in social science research in ethnic studies, the equivalent would be (1) the misstatement of some underlying data (i.e., his mischaracterization of the General Allotment Act) and (2) the total fabrication of other data to support his hypothesis (i.e., the ghostwriting and self-citation of the Robbins and Jaimes essays). Clearly, ghostwriting the Robbins and Jaimes articles involved considerably more work than fabricating underlying scientific data, but that fact makes it no less a type of fabrication or falsification. The Committee is not claiming that Professor Churchill fabricated his general conclusions; rather, he fabricated the underlying data employed to support the insupportable details bolstering those conclusions.

and claimed it as his own.

He was fired because he engaged in plagarism (they expell students from school for such actions, so what could they do with a professor?)
He had copywrite violations
He wrote "professional articles" using a "sock puppet" (he would write an article under a pseudonym, and then write a subsequent article quoting himself under his real name).
He fabricated events or stories in his publications.

He got caught in all this after he wrote some rather inflammatory statements and critics began to notice him and check into his "credentials". Some people consider him a "champion for peace", while others call him a "lying fellow traveler" with terrorists.

and teach the Seminoles at Florida State

... to thieving rubbish.

Stealing an artist's work and representing it as one's own is one of the lowest kinds of theft.

'Original' Churchill Art Piece Creates Controversy

The guy is a bum ... no matter how 'popular' he is with certain students.

He seemed egotistical and showed some real lapses of judgment--common sense and academic judgment. But he had the ability to get his students to think for themselves, and they respected him for that.

I mean you could have a little sensitivity for their families. I don't know how I'd be able to deal with someone calling my dead husband/wife/son/daughter/mom/dad/brother/sister/aunt/uncle a little Eichmann.

I understand the CIA has done a ton of horrible things, but not everyone in the WTC towers were aware of those things, and even if they had been, they probably wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.

It's just a lack of love and respect for other people. We all know that's the real reason he's getting canned, the plagiarism is a big deal for academics, but to most of us in America we care about his remarks about the 9/11 victims.

To begin with, is there anyone so retarded that they believe that this was an actual inquiry into scholarship? Can anyone make a case that anyone at CU would have given a damn without the little Eichmanns remark?

Then it becomes somewhat obvious that two years earlier - when the remark was actually made, Churchhill had no clue who actually worked in the trade center. There was a time when some of the tenants were actually doing things related to world trade.Some small number of them might have been little Eichmanns who followed orders and screwed over third world countries. By the time of 9-11 those guys were long gone and had been replaced by a few financial firms and a bunch of civil servants - almost none of whom had anything at all to do with world trade.

So Churchhill's remarks were not only insulting, the were aimed at the wrong people.

This is obviously an error of the same magnitude as invading Iraq when the towers were taken down by a bunch of Saudi's led by Al-Queda in Afghanistan. So naturally it had to be dealt with with the same intellectual rigor that is the hallmark of the conservative movement.

I'm sure that there were several committees examining the "evidence". It's highly likely that all of the committee members were carefully selected for something or other and encouraged to uphold the highest standards of academic freedom. Or Else.

I graduated from CU, and today I am slightly ashamed to admit it.

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

Actually, my alma mater is run by a pack of Republicans.

Lately, that has been tracking pretty closely with the liar part. Whether they are fools depends on whether they get away with it.

Anyway, my point, which you seem to have deliberately ignored, was that Churchhill made a stupid statement. Rather than refuting that statement, a number of Republicans, nationwide, went on a rampage to take him out. They used scholarship as their vehicle - as if any of them actually give a damn about scholarship.

I don't think their goal was foolish as much as I think it is dishonest.

And you put your dirty thumb on exactly why it is dishonest. People who can be portrayed as frauds cheats and liars should be careful of what they say. But Republicans, even when convicted by a jury of their peers, get a free pass.

Just as a candidate like Kerry could be taken out by a pack of swift-boat liars, or McCain could be taken out by lies about an adopted black child, anyone can be taken out by a Republican lynch mob.

In the long run, it will be OK. Payback is a bitch.

Google is your friend, unless you have no skills.

It's clear to me that Pierce knows the story.

There are people who aren't aware of some of the things you mention. Glad to see your post. :hi:

Churchill, protesters vow fight is not over
By John Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
July 24, 2007
~snip~ "I want to be clear," said Tom Mayer, a CU-Boulder sociology professor. "This is a political fight with academic camoflage.
"I believe the people who voted (to dismiss Churchill) are the same people who would have voted against Socrates, Galilleo ... and anyone else wth an unpopular point of view." ~snip~
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5643424,00.html



The Regents and Ward Churchill
~May 10 and 28, 2007: Two groups of professors and attorneys file research misconduct charges against the Investigative Committee for falsifying and fabricating evidence against Prof. Churchill in their Report . The governing board of the Colorado Conference of AAUP chapters calls on the University not to take action against Prof. Churchill until the legitimacy and objectivity of the Report has been investigated. ~snip~
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=13169

This is not a university known for it's generally conservative leaning.

I kind of feel sorry for him and all the other free thinking college professors in their being stuck in what is sometimes is such a thankless job. People just got to remember though that if those brown-shirts and Nazis want and need a railroad badly and if it needs to be laid out on bodies of people that should be institutions in their own right, then so be it (we can make more). But yea then again, the ambivalence kicks in and on the other hand having only went to community college and got to understand what really goes on, it kind of makes me not feel that sorry or worry all that much. Yea, he can write some books and sue the bastards but it probably won't bring the satisfaction of telling all those still-wet-behind-the-ears ditto heads that they are living a lie. Too bad for all them dittos and the life they now will leading of watching those shadows on the wall :evilgrin:


Btw, the eclectic short diatribe you just read with so much bad grammar and poor writing style was brought to you by..........

Judging by some of the disparaging comments nobody got an alternative line on his 9/11 comments which were impeccably fair.

The reason why he is so reviled is because he spoke the truth shortly after the towers got hit.

CU as an institution has gained integrity by booting this clown.

I am sure academia (which is my profession) is full of people like Churchill who inflate their resumes, finagle their research findings, find ways to plagiarize without getting caught, etc. But those people have sense enough not to draw undue attention to themselves.

Ward Churchill is trying to be Noam Chomsky but without the integrity and admirable reputation. It's his own fault for putting himself under a microscope and he can't blame the people who brought him down, regardless of their politics.

and he's not. American Indian Movement has stated that.

these days. There are a number of tiny splinter groups, but the organization that was AIM is long gone.

According to their Web site and Wikipedia, AIM is alive and well.

http://www.aimovement.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement

Any "professor" who generalizes a group of individuals with such a name is not worthy to be employed by a university. Worse than racism. Much worse.

I don't think so. I would much rather have a professor refer to a profession or class derogatorily than a skin color, thank you very much.

You would have thought the guy was running the college the way Loofa Man spoke of him.

he is filing suit against the university. There should be a transcipt up at her site (and of course, the show reairs a couple of times today).

rararararara!!! Muito legal!!! :rofl:

seen any evidence that he is a scholar.
He's always just been an opportunistic hustler working the academic industry hustle.

.....this liar and a fraud should be ashamed. Good riddance.

At least he has been removed.