Some Regents Push Back: Chief Lies-alot Fired

Yesterday, the University of Colorado Board of Regents voted 8-1 to fire Ward Churchill, professor of crackpottery at the university's Boulder campus. When not pretending to be an armed revolutionary (see photo), Churchill spent his tenured days posing as a Native American (he isn't) and a scholar (he's a serial plagiarist with a MA in communications, not a PhD in history). This, not his famous "little Eichmanns" comment, informed the decision to fire, said a university spokesman. From the Times' account:

"We wanted to do what was right for this university," the board chairwoman, Patricia Hayes, said after the vote. "We did not address Professor Churchill's freedom of speech as part of our discussion."

The university president, Hank Brown, who recommended that the board fire Professor Churchill, said he deserved to lose his job because he had "falsified history" and "fabricated history."

Brown is referring to not just to the discovery of Churchill's plagiarism, but also to his questionable body of academic work—like his claim the U.S. Army embarked on a program of genocide by deliberately infecting Indians with small-pox. Sounds plausible, but, according to this investigation by the Rocky Mountain News, not supported by the available evidence. "In fact, the pages of various books he refers to not only don't buttress his argument," wrote the News, "they contradict it." UCLA professor Russell Thornton, a scholar of Native American history, calls Churchill's writings on the smallpox epidemic "just out-and-out fabrication."

Churchill is clearly cavalier in his approach to the historical record, twisting and misrepresenting facts in order to make a grand, "anti-imperialist" point. When rereading his controversial essay "Some Push Back"—in which he refers to the "little Eichmanns"—I noticed this passage on Gulf War I:

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys"--or was it "sand niggers" that week?--in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance.

100,000 killed in the closing days of the war by "hyper-lethal types of ordnance"? (As opposed, I suppose, to moderately lethal ordinance.) Easy to understand "why they hate us," I suppose. Except that Churchill's casualty figures are off by about 99,700.

As Washington Post correspondent Steve Coll wrote, "more Iraqis fled their vehicles and were taken prisoner than were killed by U.S. bombing of the highway. There still are no reliable figures on precisely how many people were killed in the convoy, but reporters who visited the scene as bodies were being collected say the most they saw at any one place was 40, and they estimated that a total of 200 to 300 Iraqis may have died at the scene."

It is this sort of thing that resulted in Churchill's termination; he was not, as this Newsday headline says, "fired over [his] controversial 9/11 essay." If this were true, it would be a clear violation of Churchill's academic freedom—a freedom to write amateurish, semi-coherent philippics comparing sinister capitalists "braying into their cell phones" to the fascist "desk killers" responsible for Auschwitz. His Eichmann comments surely precipitated the accusations of academic misconduct, but so what?

The Norm Finkelstein case, which I blogged about here and Cathy Young discussed here, was a tougher call—and after surveying the evidence I agree with Prof. Norm Geras' position. But Churchill's firing is unambiguous: it has nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with academic standards and honesty.

reason on Ward Churchill here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    A rabid leftist professor would lie to us? Say it ain't so!

  • ||

    Caption Contest!

    "Hey Biden, take care of this baby!"

  • ||

    University of Colorado Board of Regents voted 8-1 to fire Ward Churchill

    Who was the one? Can they fire him/her next?

  • ||

    Just wait till those Little Eichmann's on the review board get a taste of his supporters crunchy grooves.

  • ||

    The fact that he could operate without significant scholarly credentials and as an open plagiarist this long is disturbing enough. I'm sure someone else will pick him up. Maybe the Falcons?

  • ||

    No, really, this had nothing to do with Churchill's politically incorrect essay. Really. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's so obvious.

  • VM||

    semi-coherent philippics comparing sinister capitalists "braying into their cell phones" to the fascist "desk killers" responsible for Auschwitz.

    Sort of a reworking of the train wreck scene from "Atlas Shrugged", but done in an afternoon movie format for the Lifetime network?

    Or like "Free Willy" sans whale?

  • ||

    Wake me when this assclown's Warholian 15 mins have expired.

  • jimmydageek||

    caption: "Are you talkin' to me?"

  • ||

    In other news, a community college in Connecticut fired a janitor for smoking a joint in the boiler room.

    So? I don't understand why this person gets so much attention from the media.

    BTW, I don't know squat about Churchill's "scholarship," but a letter in General Belcher's hand, describing how he ordered smallpox-infected blankets distributed to local Indians during some war or other, was found a year or two ago.

  • jimmydageek||

    Hey, PL...Have you worn your Bibertarians shirt in public yet? If so, any comments??

  • ||

    In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death

    At least he won the Most-Prepositional-Phrases-in-a-Sentence Award.

    Some academic...

  • ||

    Caption: Look Kids, I'm hip!

  • VM||

    "In other news, a community college in Connecticut fired a janitor for smoking a joint in the boiler room."

    that's right! just before Scott Baio goes crazy at the roulette party.

    ZAPPED!

    joe - are you thinking of Lord Jeff Amherst? Probably a rumor started by a Williams grad (a little NESCAC humor this afternoon)

    srsly - use of disease or dead animals was a part of warfare - why is the blanket story implausible?

  • ||

    I think this is the testimony that did him in

    Please, I have to talk to you all right now!

    Kid, we're have a meeting.

    Something very big is happening, and if you all don't give me a moment of your time, there may be no more University of Colorado to regents over!

    What are you talking about?

    I'm talking about the end of all life as we know it. For the past several days I've been... noticing a steep rise in the number of hippies coming to campus. At first I thought maybe it was just a coincidence. Then I saw this... Three new drum circles have sprouted up here, here, and here. They're all growing in diameter, at a rate of two hippies per hour. What this means... is that the hippies are conglomerating. They'er thriving, if you will. I think that they're setting up for a... hippie music festival.

  • ||

    Caption:

    "If I grow a beard, I'll look just like Che, and the girls will think I'm dreeeeamy."

  • VG||

    I seriously think Churchill was not serious in his views, but more an agent provocateur seeing how much he could get away with.

    Think about it, hes adopted all the stereotypes of leftist professors--dead white man bashing, racial identity politics, 'radical' writings, and teaching in a subject you are unqualified for.

  • x,y||

    Caption:

    Courtesy of CBS and CSI: Boulder.

  • fyodor||

    Actually gotta agree with Dan T's naming of the 800 lb gorilla, as poorly as he himself addresses it.

    Cause however bad Churchill's scholarship may have been (and like joe, I don't claim to know), it's obvious that no one cared till his "little Eichmanns" crap reared its head (to mix a metaphor!). Not that that necessarily clears him if he indeed committed tenure-breaking crimes, but it's unsettling that expressing a noxious POV, even one that's deservedly noxious, should be what calls out the dogs to sniff out your sins.

    But then, that said, that's life. If you got stuff to hide, you may wanna keep a low profile.

  • Allen||

    The point isn't that things like the smallpox are implausible; that the sources Churchill cited do not back up his claims.

    What scares me is that this guy was ever hired in the first place. More so that this sort of shoddy "scholarship" went on for so long. But most of all that he got away with claiming he has a PHD when he doesn't. A $100 background check would've kept all this from happening in the first place.

  • ||

    Caption:

    "It's pronounced 'Ward Che-chill."

    (Would have been funny if P Brooks hadn't posted a Che reference first.)

  • ||

    Caption:

    Rebels are we, / Born to be free, / just like the fish in the sea!

  • fyodor||

    I seriously think Churchill was not serious in his views, but more an agent provocateur seeing how much he could get away with.

    Think about it, hes adopted all the stereotypes of leftist professors--dead white man bashing, racial identity politics, 'radical' writings, and teaching in a subject you are unqualified for.


    Was "Ward Churchill" a made-up name, like Ed Anger??

    That reminds me, in more important news, didja all hear that the Weekly World News is ceasing publication?? Due to the problems stressing all print publications, they said. I hereby renounce my libertarianism and call for a banning of the internet to effect a means of protectionism for bringing back the Weekly World News!!! BRING BACK THE WEEKLY WORLD NEWS!!!!!

  • ||

    Fyodor (and Dan T of course),

    Actually I disagree. It took the university close to 6 years to revoke his tenure. I think they actually liked his nutty, radical rantings because he gave them publicity. Only when his fraudalent academic stuff started coming out did they have to do something to save their credibility as a university.

  • ||

    I don't think Churchill is some typical liberal professor, nor do I see this as a major victory for anyone. Except maybe the rational. But the fact that someone like Churchill wasn't denounced for his lack of scholarship is telling. Of what, I have no idea. Friggin' boomers.

    Matt J,

    From now on, the official language is Swedish.

  • ||

    Cause however bad Churchill's scholarship may have been (and like joe, I don't claim to know), it's obvious that no one cared till his "little Eichmanns" crap reared its head (to mix a metaphor!). Not that that necessarily clears him if he indeed committed tenure-breaking crimes, but it's unsettling that expressing a noxious POV, even one that's deservedly noxious, should be what calls out the dogs to sniff out your sins.

    It reminds me a little of people who said that Bill Clinton was impeached only because he sort of lied under oath.

  • ||

    VM,

    Maybe Amherst. Amherst is next to Belchertown, so I can never keep them straight.

    Which is also a problem for Northampton. Ba dum bum. A little Happy Valley humor there.

  • fyodor||

    Good one, Matt J.

    How about, "Woof, woof. My name is Rex!"

  • ||

    Caption:

    "Hero of the Coloradovakian Socialist Republic"

  • Kohlrabi||

    Joe,

    Allen is correct. You don't get to be an acedemic by correctly guessing.

  • Viking Älg||

    nej. intet svensk. jag hatar det språket..

    NEJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ!!!!!

  • Chavez is a thug||

    "No, really, this had nothing to do with Churchill's politically incorrect essay. Really. Nothing. Nothing at all. It's so obvious."

    Wow, such biting sarcasm. Please, we can't handle the onslaught.

  • ||

    Pro Lib,

    In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now... 16 years old!

  • ||

    his claim the U.S. Army embarked on a program of genocide by deliberately infecting Indians with small-pox. Sounds plausible, but, according to this investigation by the Rocky Mountain News, not supported by the available evidence.

    SIV will be along to claim VICTORY shortly...

  • ||

    b/w photo is good...keeps the cheap plastic squirt gun from looking like one.

  • ||

    You know, in that photo, he reminds me of Howard Stern. If he were dressed up as Che for some reason.

    For those who are quibbling over why he was fired, let's just say that if he were a squeakily clean, qualified academic, an uproar might ensue. But all I'm hearing are the crickets.

    By the way, what's up in the Al-Arian case? Used to hear about it, but it's been quiet, lately. I tend to think he deserved firing, at least, though his continuing imprisonment seems a bit much.

  • ||

    Kohlrabi,

    Was my use of the phrase "I don't know squat about Churchill's "scholarship," but..." too confusing for you?

  • ||

    Bananas is such a great movie. I miss the funny Woody.

  • lunchstealer||

    It doesn't bother me that he's getting fired for gross academic incompetence. It bothers me that he got no real scrutiny about it until he said something unpopular.

    The lesson here appears to be that as long as you don't say anything uncontroversial, you can be as lazy an unqualified as you like, and you're golden.

  • ||

    You know, in that photo, he reminds me of Howard Stern. If he were dressed up as Che for some reason.

    Just don't call him a gun nut, that would be unfair and elitist.

    For those who are quibbling over why he was fired, let's just say that if he were a squeakily clean, qualified academic, an uproar might ensue. But all I'm hearing are the crickets.


    Another thing about this story is the way both the governor and legislature of Colorado censured Churchill a few years back (right after the publication of the infamous 9/11 essay, by coincidence).

    I mean, they take academic standards seriously in Colorado!

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    Cause however bad Churchill's scholarship may have been (and like joe, I don't claim to know), it's obvious that no one cared till his "little Eichmanns" crap reared its head (to mix a metaphor!).

    Which more accurately describes what happened?

    A) Churchill said that dumb shit, and the university went looking for a reason to fire him.
    B) Churchill said that dumb shit; others outside the University started checking out his record in the process of criticizing him, found evidence of plagiarism etc.; they brought that to the attention of the university, which then, using the same standard by which all such allegations are judged, found Churchill guilty of violating important rules.

    I wholeheartedly support the rights of academics (and everyone else) to dissent from mainstream views (though Churchill's dissent was hateful nonsense counterproductive to those of us who speak legitimate dissent). But we shouldn't turn expressing unpopular political beliefs into a "get out of academic dishonor free" card.

  • Chavez is a thug||

    "Cause however bad Churchill's scholarship may have been (and like joe, I don't claim to know), it's obvious that no one cared till his "little Eichmanns" crap reared its head (to mix a metaphor!). Not that that necessarily clears him if he indeed committed tenure-breaking crimes, but it's unsettling that expressing a noxious POV, even one that's deservedly noxious, should be what calls out the dogs to sniff out your sins"

    So, evidently, comparing murder victims to a man who abetted one of the greatest mass-murders in history should inoculate this idiot from criticism regarding his "scholarship". That is sure as hell what this "argument" seems to be implying.
    His scholarship is a matter of public discourse, not something akin to a sealed juvenile criminal record. It is out there to be looked into no matter the reason. If he didn't commit a litany of academic violations, he would still have his job. I almost wish he did; at least that way we could be spared the moral preening of the sort that leads to the ridiculous arguments I quoted above.

  • ||

    Maybe he was secretly in charge of getting strippers for the football team. That would explain his near-invulnerability.

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    Forgot to note that don't intend the dichotomy in my post as a "gotcha" question I've already answered in my mind, since I think the poster I quoted isn't really disagreeing. My recollection of this harglebargle is that it's basically B, but probably a little of both. And yeah, the school should have caught this a lot earlier. But that's a reason to fix their tenure process, not to excuse Churchill's misconduct.

  • ||

    Dan T.,

    So what? He should've been fired before. By being an ass, he made sure that scrutiny was placed on his scholarly record. I fear his stone casting in a glass house was foolish, at best.

    Professors have said worse things than he and survived. That's because they were assholes with legitimate academic credentials. And tenure.

  • Koko the Signing Gorilla||

    That nipple go drink, go. Lights-off good.

  • ||

    I gotta agree with Anonymo - whatever their motivations, the Churchill-hunters got the goods on him.

    It's a shame that this episode will almost certainly encourage them to try to pull the same stunt on legitimate professors, but that's no reason to keep Churchill in his position. If anything, it's a reason for colleges to poke into the dusty corners so the Horowitz goobers don't have any ammunition.

  • ||

    Bananas is such a great movie. I miss the funny Woody.

    He's still funny, just not intentionally.

    My old man is a huge early Allen fan. He still makes restaurant reservations under the name Fielding Mellish. As a teen I could get out of almost anything if I said:

    Guilty...With an explaination.

  • lunchstealer||

    But then, that said, that's life. If you got stuff to hide, you may wanna keep a low profile.

    The converse also being true, if you wanna go out and really piss off the powers that be, make sure you've got your academic shit at least plausibly together.

  • highnumber||

    I'm going to start sending my resume to universities.

  • Kohlrabi||

    Joe,

    ?? Not at all. Did I say something to make you believe that? You pointed out that he may have been correct. I pointed out that that makes no difference. What does this have to do with your level of knowledge regarding his "scholarship"? Weird.

  • ||

    Is it elitist if you aren't scared of somebody who writes "I have a gub?"

  • ||

    Good old Woody quote:

    "Hey, don't knock masterbation. It's sex with someone I love."

  • ||

    Dan T.,

    So what? He should've been fired before. By being an ass, he made sure that scrutiny was placed on his scholarly record. I fear his stone casting in a glass house was foolish, at best.


    That's assuming that the charges against him are legit and not either trumped-up or exaggerated. And we know that there was a lot of political pressure for CU to get rid of the guy.

  • ||

    Kohlrabi,

    You seemed to be implying that I was defending Churchill's scholarship. I wasn't.

  • ||

    He was in the ethnic studies department.

    In much the same way I honestly wonder why good cops tolerate bad cops, I often wonder why real academics (e.g. biochemists or economists) put up with ethnic studies departments. I certainly would not want to be associated with such "research" as goes on in most ethnic studies departments.

  • ||

    Of course, one other angle is that thanks to America's sudden concern with academic standards, a lot more people are going to read Churchill's 9/11 essay, which does contain some pretty dangerous ideas. Making him a free-speech martyr in the eyes of many probably helps his cause as well.

  • ||

    Koko--that's true wisdom. Really, the gorillas are ahead of us in many respects.

    Professors, if anything, are too immune to these kinds of attacks. How often does this happen? And let's not forget the near-infinite Teflon® of tenure when it comes to opinion issues.

  • ||

    If anything, it's a reason for colleges to poke into the dusty corners

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you have to produce your work to get a job? Are raises dependent on continued scholarship?

  • the innominate one||

    Pro Lib:

    that's a major reason for tenure: to be able to hold controversial opinions without fear for your job.

  • ||

    Caption:

    The initially proposed cover for "Fear & Loathing On the Campaign Trail '72"

  • thoreau||

    I don't claim to know much about his work either, but if he committed plagiarism then I'm glad he got fired. Although I should refrain from any firm judgements unless I examine the details, my hunch is that the case was pretty strong if they fired him.

    Without knowing how well he covered his tracks, I can't say whether his department should be faulted for not catching it sooner.

    It is of course true that the case unfolded the way it did because of his insane remarks, but that doesn't change the fact that if he plagiarized then he has to go.

    As to this:
    In much the same way I honestly wonder why good cops tolerate bad cops, I often wonder why real academics (e.g. biochemists or economists) put up with ethnic studies departments.

    Because reputations are based on individuals and departments as much as schools, and because academic politics is such that it's hard for one department to have much effect on another. You can bitch about the screw-ups in another department and see nothing change, or you can do a good job of research and teaching and develop a good scholarly reputation and train your students well. The first approach is pointless, the second approach is satisfying and productive.

    Besides, I suspect that there's actually a baby in that bathwater. In addition to the freak shows there are probably some people doing good research and teaching on history, literature, art, and culture, only with a focus on a particular group. I don't know why the good ones put up with the freaks, but it just makes it all the harder for outsiders to justify investing the time and political capital to root out the freaks.

    If I have a choice between spending my time supervising some good senior thesis projects, or serving on a committee to review another department, guess which one I'll spend my time on?

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    Of course, one other angle is that thanks to America's sudden concern with academic standards, a lot more people are going to read Churchill's 9/11 essay, which does contain some pretty dangerous ideas.

    Agreed. The idea that thousands of murdered civilians should be equated with Nazi war criminals is very dangerous.

    I usually just take your trolling as a curious diversion, but you need to shut the fuck up now.

  • fyodor||

    Didn't the "fish in sea" song come from Sleeper?

  • ||

    Moose: Varför hatar du svenska? det är gudsspråk, min vän...

  • fyodor||

    Answer to my own question after googling: it was in both (Bananas and Sleeper). I believe I saw Sleeper first, when it first came out (when I was a teenager), so that's probably why I associate it with that one.

  • ||

    Agreed. The idea that thousands of murdered civilians should be equated with Nazi war criminals is very dangerous.

    That's not really what he meant. Here's Churchill's own explanation:

    Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

  • ||

    fyodor,

    It's originally from Bananas. But Sleeper was great, too, and Allen can certainly refer back to his own works whenever he wants. I also liked Love and Death. I have a soft spot for tsarist humor.

  • ||

    I think there's a reason that most of the posts in this thread start with the obligatory "I don't know much about this case, but..."

    The reason: No one gives a fuck.

  • thoreau||

    Taktix gets post #69 in this thread.

    Ironically, he uses that treasured post to say that nobody gives a fuck about the topic at hand.

  • Chavez is a thug||

    "That's not really what he meant."

    Actually that is exactly what he meant. That long-winded quote compares the individuals in the World Trade Center to the individuals who aided in Nazi atrocities. I guess that somewhere prior to 9-11 there must have been American "industrialists" participating in the murder of 6 million Jews.

  • dhex||

    funny ha ha thing about churchill was some of the stuff he wrote about encroachment by non-indigenous people on indigenous identities.

    man that's preacher who hates gays in public but smokes meth, funboys in private funny ha ha.

    revenge of the repressed?

  • ||

    Take the Money and Run is a personal favorite. Kudos to joe for the gub reference.

    "You know, he never made the 'ten most wanted' list. It's very unfair voting; it's who you know."

  • dhex||

    re: beyond the usual "lolz reading is for fags not like math why won't anyone touch my junk must be commies lolz?" stuff, the "good ones" in various cultural studies/cultural anthro sections put up with the "bad ones" (i.e. jackasses) because a) you want tenure b) you can't just kill people you don't like and c) uh yeah really they can't just shoot them in the face double barrel john woo style while screaming "THIS IS FOR THE DATA SET YOU NEVER HAD."

  • ||

    Come to think of it Allen kind of invented the mockumentary with Take the Money and Run.

    I can't think of an earlier example.

    And yes this is a threadjack, but it's more fun than talking about a douche like Churchill.

  • ||

    If Churchill actually had a degree in history, he might have realiced that Adolf Eichmann did not just "insure the smooth running of the infrastructure" of genocide, but was a major figure directing its creation and use.

    If he'd known that, maybe he wouldn't have picked such an inappropriate analogy, and his shoddy academic credentials wouldn't have come to light.

    Poetic justice.

  • ||

    Ok, this thread wouldn't be complete without a link to Chutch

  • ||

    I'm with joe: I simply cannot abide so-called historians who can't get their Nazi history right. After all, there's a whole cable channel devoted to Nazi history.

    Woody Allen's stand-up was great, too. And he gave us Christopher Walken, for all intents and purposes.

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    Yeah. Nobody associates "Eichmann" with Nazi genocide. No connotation of evil. Just "smooth running of infrastructure". German efficiency.

    I repeat: shut the fuck up.

  • thoreau||

    dhex-

    I didn't mean to imply that humanities is worthless.

    FWIW, I suspect that while ethnic studies might attract more loonies and jackasses than other departments (and the sciences have their own forms of loonies and jackasses, lest anybody think I'm being a science snob here), they probably also have to put up with a much bigger spotlight. There are people just itching to get offended by something that an ethnic studies professor said, but not as many people looking to get offended by something that a physics professor said.

    There is also a feedback loop between scrutiny and attention whores.

    FWIW, the only thing I ask of humanities and social science faculty is that they require my students to read a ton of books and write a ton of essays. I'll leave it to them to decide what the books and essays should be about, just as long as my students get that valuable training of massive reading and writing assignments.

    The problem is that my expectations for the humanities faculty leave a lot of leeway, while the engineering school expects a shitload from me: "We want students to study x, y, and z in freshman physics, and master the following skills..."

  • dhex||

    "I didn't mean to imply that humanities is worthless."

    oh, i know that. consider it a preemptive strike, since that's generally what comes up when these things are mentioned. (that and "book xyz is only respected because no one can understand it, and by "no one" i mean "me"")

    sadly, some of these things are tolerated because jerkoffs get tenure and well, yeah. and its reinforced when the people howling for your blood are right wing radio show host types and the usual partisans. it's like, "oh these fuckfaces again...man the battlements! send out for some organic co-op sandwiches, now! we're gonna be a while..."

  • ||

    The History Channel hasn't been devoted to Nazi history for two years.

    These days, it's all "Modern Marvels: Sippy Cups" and "Keith Caradine Taking 30 Minutes to Relate a Two Minute Story About Some Cowboy Who Got Shot in the Olden Days."

  • Urkobold™||

    AT LEAST CHURCHILL DOESN'T HAVE A PH.D. IN EDUCATION.

  • ||

    The highway of death thing did happen, may not have ben 100,000 -- but we're talking 1000s or 10,000s -- several reporters were on the scene and documented this. Washington Pravda's account is sloppy journalism

  • dhex||

    also it goes without saying i have a lot of respect for the hard sciences, for anyone who pound the dirt for good data rather than good gotcha moments, etc. and i would love to see a greater fixation on evidentiary-based proceedings for a lot of the humanities and not just those connected to anthropology and sociology.

  • thoreau||

    it's like, "oh these fuckfaces again...man the battlements! send out for some organic co-op sandwiches, now! we're gonna be a while..."

    Just make sure the person who goes to get the sandwiches brings them back in a cloth shopping bag, not a plastic bag.

    :)

  • ||

    The History Channel hasn't been devoted to Nazi history for two years.

    These days, it's all "Modern Marvels: Sippy Cups" and "Keith Caradine Taking 30 Minutes to Relate a Two Minute Story About Some Cowboy Who Got Shot in the Olden Days."


    Don't forget UFOs, Nostrodamus, Bible shit, and fucking trucks on a goddamned horseshit-eating frozen lake in cocksucking Canada. How in the felching hell are TRUCKS ON ICE history?? Give me back my Nazi trivia, History Channel!

  • ||

    Joe

    . . . not to mention evening after evening of recreated airplane dogfights apparently done with Windows 98 cg.

    And I swear there was a recent "Modern Marvels" episode about "Garage Gadgets"-- door openers and whatnot . . .my god, has that channel gone down the tubes.

  • thoreau||

    I'm trying to think what it would take for a physics professor to get on David Horowitz's radar, and I'm coming up blank.

    But when I think about what it would take for an ethnic studies professor to get on Horowitz's radar, I suspect the answer is "wake up in the morning."

  • Urkobold™||

    DON'T FORGET TO RE-USE Q-TIPS!

  • ||

    I'm trying to think what it would take for a physics professor to get on David Horowitz's radar, and I'm coming up blank.

    Discover a new subatomic particle and name it the Hillaron. Or Stalon. Or something.

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    Not strictly apropos but thoreau's comment about physics and Horowitz reminded me of this, which is always good for a laugh.

    Sokol affair

  • ||

    Seriously, what makes the History Channel think that geeks like me, who watched their Nazi documentaries for hours on end five years ago, wouldn't watch them again?

    BTW, does anyone remember the British series "Battlefields?" Mrs. joe used to bust my stones about watching that.

    "The ridge was held by several American regiments. The fourth..." graphic appears "...the fifth..." graphic appears "...the sixth..." graphic appears "...the seventh..." graphic appears "...and elements of the eigth..." graphic appears "...the tenth...." graphic appears "...and the eleventh," graphic appears.

    "Arrayed against them were the German Fourth Division..." graphic appears "...the Fifth Division..." graphic appears "...the Sixth SS Division..." graphic appears "...and elements of..."

  • dhex||

    "Just make sure the person who goes to get the sandwiches brings them back in a cloth shopping bag, not a plastic bag."

    cloth? do you know how many bleaches are used to make so your so-called cloth? hemp is so much more durable! WHY ARE YOU RAPING THE EARTH?!?!?

    on a serious tip though, just between you, me and the internet, hemp milk is fucking delicious. talk about something that should suck so hard that doesn't suck hard at all.

    and yeah, the sokol affair is both brilliant and sad. i don't blame them for being pissed at cheeseheads, but at the same time spend too much time staring at the low hanging fruit and thou shalt become grapes.

  • ||

    I was always partial to the "ales of the Gun" series.

  • ||

    joe,

    Precisely. Why not bite the bullet and call it the Nazi Channel? Just like TLC should become TTC (The Tattoo Channel).

  • ||

    Though, to be fair, they also could call it the Roman Channel. That's been the "other topic" since Gladiator came out. Which is ironic, since that movie was about as historically accurate as Star Wars.

  • ||

    "ales of the Gun"

    There should be a T in there somewhere. Now I have an idea for a microbrewery, though.

  • ||

    Caption: By Any Means Literary

  • CL||

    I usually just take your trolling as a curious diversion, but you need to shut the fuck up now.

    Oh noes! Not insulting dead people with horrendously inapt and stupid comparisons! Why, how will the dead people ever live through it?

  • ||

    In tonight's episode of "Ales of the Gun" Billy the Kid savors a surprisingly insouciant huckleberrypeachwheat pilsner, served in a glass rinsed with the water used in steaming the artichoke hors d'oeuvre.

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    CL: Huh?

  • ||

    Next week, on a very special night of "ales of the Gun:" Machine Gun Kelly gives us his rapidfire ratings on the wares at Lackawanna River Boat Repair's Brewpub.

  • ||

    Joe -- I've started watching those "Battlefields" shows on youtube, since I'm also disgusted that the "History" channel is now the "Repository of Flotsam in the A&E Collection" channel.

  • fyodor||

    Anonymo/Dan T,

    I think the key to understanding Churchill is that the bigger picture comparison, for him, is between Nazi Germany and the U.S. Sure, he wasn't calling 9/11 victims Nazis per se, but his point was that the US was a force for evil in the world, and that the workers in the WTC were facilitators of this evil, which made them legitimate military targets for those who were ostensibly defending themselves from this evil even if they (the WTC workers) did not directly participate in perpetrating the evil themselves.

    Personally I find this POV noxious and retarded, for a variety of reasons. That he wasn't really directly calling 9/11 victims Nazis doesn't do much to save him in my eyes. Though making his point with a particularly vitriolic use of words does add somewhat to the noxiousness of it.

    That said, I don't think he should be fired for this POV. But that said, a few folks have responded to my original post on the subject by making the point (which I kinda pre-acknowledged at the end of my own first post) that while Churchill's controversial comments certainly brought his questionable past to light, that does not necessarily mean that they created the kind of witch hunt that might lead one to conclude he was singled out for unfair persecution.

  • The Wine Commonsewer®||

    Ward Churchill gets the boot?

    Whoo Hooo!

  • Viking Elg||

    Michael Moynihan:

    jeg driller bare :)

  • DanT Destroyer||

    Yes, you scum ... you rabble. Dan T is an idiot extraordinaire, and his sidespeak is nothing but so much hot air. Empty and vacuous, it is not so much uneducated as it is annoying. Listen to me you mendacious baboon! We have had enough of your self-indulgent impetuosity. It is a lame attempt at being clever, or worse, a cry for attention. You are not clever, a thought provoking devil's advocate or an interesting commentator. You cloud an otherwise clear and interesting forum with your intolerable putresence. May you rot in the land of smarmy marmots, in the internet gutter of chat rooms that are composed of, for and by your intolerable ilk: the assholes that think far too highly of themselves.

  • Steve Verdon||

    You mean Lord Jeffery Amherst anticipated the germ theory of disease by what...a century? A true military genius, obviously.

  • Bee||

    These days, it's all "Modern Marvels: Sippy Cups"

    Awesome, joe. I'll be wheezing with silent laughter all afternoon now.

    BTW, is it the History Channel that has all those mealy-mouthed "Could this prove the existence of such-and-such from the Bible" shows on the weekends? I really hate those. Or maybe it's the Biography Channel? They irritate the shit out of me while I am waiting for the Bristish murder mysteries to come on.

  • DanT Destroyer redeemero||

    Just kidding. I actually think you are insightful , a breath of fresh air in a sometimes stale pack of quivering libertarians. Thank you for being DanT.

  • ||

    but a letter in General Belcher's hand, describing how he ordered smallpox-infected blankets distributed to local Indians during some war or other, was found a year or two ago.

    How small pox did not infect and spread from the soldiers who handed out the blankets is explained away by the use of plastic containers to hold the infected blankets.

    How the small pox survived in the blankets for long periods of time is explained because the strain of the small pox was a militarized form specially developed by the US army in the late 1700's.

    Let no one accuse joe, who is very unlike Churchhill, of making up facts or history.

  • The Wine Commonsewer®||

    Joshua Corning, thank you for that succinct summary.

    I continue to be amazed by the contingent of ex post facto historians who ascribe the brilliant plan to eliminate the Injun populace through the use of smallpox infected blankets to people whose medical habits did not include the most rudimentary procedures. Like washing your hands before surgery.

    This smallpox/blanket myth tent has now been enlarged to include the Padres in the southwest. Three hundred years ago they were medically advanced enough to infect the locals with smallpox. A brilliant strategy as well given that the local Indians supplied most of the labor required to keep the Mission communities running.

  • ||

    You best watch yourself when disputing the "facts" of our smallpox genocide of aboriginal Americans. More than a few commenters will be ready to string you up.

  • ||

    joe-

    It's a shame that this episode will almost certainly encourage them to try to pull the same stunt on legitimate professors

    Ward Churchill was a "legitimate" professor (with tenure!) until this investigation started...

  • ||

    Glad to see Ward go but not near as satisfying as when Bellesisles got the boot. Takes damn near forever to fire these shitheads.

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    Sure, he wasn't calling 9/11 victims Nazis per se, but his point was that the US was a force for evil in the world, and that the workers in the WTC were facilitators of this evil, which made them legitimate military targets for those who were ostensibly defending themselves from this evil even if they (the WTC workers) did not directly participate in perpetrating the evil themselves.

    First, just noticed the copy of Churchill's essay linked in the original post here appears to be abridged at the moment. It ends at "As to those in the World Trade Center...", which is right where some of the most infamous stuff begins and only about halfway through the essay. This appears to be the whole essay.

    "...the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers..."

    Did he call the victims Nazis "per se"? He is not alleging them to be members of the National Socialist Party which ruled Germany some decades ago. But what does "Eichmann" convey if not "Nazi" -- not literally "National Socialist" but "genocidal tyrants"? To call someone "Eichmann" is necessarily to call them a "Nazi". I say "Eichmann," you think "Nazi". We know the name Eichmann solely because he was an important Nazi. There is no other place to go with that reference.

    Thus, I think saying he "wasn't really directly calling 9/11 victims Nazis" is to concede far too much. The only sense in which he was not calling them "Nazis" is the most strictly literal sense, "member of the National Socialist Party." I think the only sensible reading of the "Eichmann" reference is he intended to attach to the 9/11 victims every concept carried with Nazism, which is now essentially a synonym for evil on the highest order, save for the literal "National Socialist" meaning.

    (And yes, I understand you are not defending Churchill; we are merely arguing some semantics about his essay).

  • Anonymo the Anonymous||

    Oh, and to lighten the mood...

    "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism; at least it's an ethos."

    "Vee believe in nothink!"

  • edna||

    pro and fyo, "rebels are we" was in both bananas and sleeper. in the latter, it's a song written by diane keaton when she goes stockholm with her kidnappers. mostly from erno.

    god, those were funny movies.

  • ||

    I haven't read all the comments yet, so my apologies for any duplication...

    But Dan T & joe are simply arguing against nothing. They state that Ward was fired due to his speeches, but that's not true. He was fired because he was a fraud.

    The only thing that's true is that they probably never would've found out he was a fraud had he kept a low profile. His loud mouth and idiotic rantings forced others to investigate, and then easily expose him for the fraud he is.

    So yes, one thing led to another. Just like it does in any other aspect in life.

    For instance, if you lie on your resume and get hired anyway; stay low key to ensure it never comes up, and there likely won't be any negative impacts.

    Argue against what most people in your company believe, rightly or wrongly, be prepared to pay for both your contentiousness & your original fraud.

    This is life - or - A equals A

  • ||

    lunchstealer beat me to it -

    The lesson here appears to be that as long as you don't say anything uncontroversial, you can be as lazy an unqualified as you like, and you're golden.

    It sucks, but such is life.

  • Guy Montag||

    Never fear, The New Republic should have Stephen Glass' old desk waiting for him, right between 'Scott Thomas' and Eve Fairbanks.

  • Mark Bahner||

    "100,000 killed in the closing days of the war by "hyper-lethal types of ordnance"? (As opposed, I suppose, to moderately lethal ordinance.) Easy to understand "why they hate us," I suppose. Except that Churchill's casualty figures are off by about 99,700."

    "It is this sort of thing that resulted in Churchill's termination;..."

    If that was indeed the case, my respects to the University of Colorado Board of Regents.

  • ||

    Never fear, The New Republic should have Stephen Glass' old desk waiting for him, right between 'Scott Thomas' and Eve Fairbanks.

    Don't forget Lee Siegel. What a shitty little magazine.

    Haven't heard anything about Fairbanks though. What's the story there?

  • ||

    " if you lie on your resume and get hired anyway; stay low key to ensure it never comes up"

    Or you could just lie low until you get tenure, at which time all bets are off.

    Or you could actually be good at your job, which will reduce the likelihood that people will dig your resume out of the file.

  • ||

    Reason usually likes guys who pose with assault rifles.

  • The Wine Commonsewer®||

    Reason usually likes guys who pose with assault rifles.

    OTOH, the commentors generally like hot naked chicks who pose with assault rifles.

  • ||

    ...the commentors generally like hot naked chicks who pose with assault rifles.

    They're bikini girls... with machine guns! Heheh heheh.

  • ||

    OTOH, the commentors generally like hot naked chicks who pose with assault rifles.

    Link, please?

  • ||

    RC, this probably isn't what you're looking for, but all the Beavis & Butthead fans will appriciate it. As will Cramps fans.

    Bikini Girls With Machine Guns

  • Boludo Tejano||

    Re dhex, thoreau's comments regarding physics/eng/math vs. humanities/ethnic studies,
    or "hard" vs. "soft."
    I was an engineer who went to education as a second career. A thermodynamics or math professor cannot speak BS or conjecture. Whatever such a prof says is backed up by logic, intellectual rigor, and hard facts. Similarly, a student cannot succeed in such fields without hard work, rigor, and logic.

    I found out that Education profs would state as fact that which was only conjecture. It was not difficult to find personal experience or research in the academic or popular literature to easily refute Education profs' fact masquerading as conjecture. I would have found it virtually impossible to refute any statements by a math or thermodynamics prof.
    Education profs will come up with the teaching fad of the week/year. Consider all the theories regarding math teaching in the last 40 years. There are no such fad movements regarding Newton's second law.
    This is why people educated in math/science/engineering view the humanities and social sciences as BS. Ward Churchill's lack of rigor is only the tip of the iceberg.

  • ||

    Two words, people:

    STRING THEORY!

  • ||

    This is why people educated in math/science/engineering view the humanities and social sciences as BS. Ward Churchill's lack of rigor is only the tip of the iceberg."

    The sciences:liberal arts :: traning:education

  • ||

    So what they are saying is this guy is a good candidate for most elected positions in government. He has no problem making shit up to suit his agenda, dare I say he is perfectly suited for life as a politician!

  • Agent Provokeatear||

    I seriously think Churchill was not serious in his views, but more an agent provocateur seeing how much he could get away with.

    I seriously think joe is not serious in his views, but more an agent provocateur seeing how much he can get away with.

  • Engineer||

    bob-cat,
    If you can't make a stupid statement about the value of liberal art education over the natural sciences and engineering without stepping on your own words, you probably aren't that "educated." Just sayin'.

  • ||

    Steve Verdon | July 25, 2007, 6:41pm | #

    You mean Lord Jeffery Amherst anticipated the germ theory of disease by what...a century?


    Um, no, not even remotely. People in the West realized that the causes of disease can reside in victims' bedding for centuries before the Germ Theory was proven. They were burning Plague victims' bedding in the Middle Ages.

  • ||

    joshua, TWC,

    It's ok that you don't understand the events that took place. You don't have to understand exactly how it was carried out. We have the admission from the general who ordered it that he did so. Your God of the Gaps denialism notwithstanding.

  • ||

    anon,

    He may have had tenure, but that didn't make him a legitimate professor.

    SixSigma,

    Maybe you should read the thread before mouthing off about what I wrote, because as usual, you've confused me with the liberal in your head. I've been arguing exactly the opposite of the position you ascribed to me. Again.

  • ||

    Anonymo,

    Churchill was definitely comparing the WTC victims to Nazis. But the point he was trying to make was that they were like those employees of the German state who kept the trains running and filed the paperwork and took on other bureaucratic missions. Of course, his analogy failed, because that doesn't describe Eichmann at all - Eichmann was a big mover and shaker, not a clerk.

  • ||

    The Straight Dope on the Smallpox Blankets:

    http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html

    Yes, TWC and joshua corning, someone here is allowing their political bias to interfere with the objective understanding of history. Two of you, actually.

  • ||

    You mean people didn't routinely jump off cliffs before Sir Isaac Newton?

    The Straight Dope: Cecil Adams rocks!

  • VM||

    @ Steve Verdon | July 25, 2007, 6:41pm

    um. what joe said this morning 10:05. and 10:19

    use of dead/diseased animals was a part of warfare.

    There's snark in your post (and others'), but I don't get why - Lord J.A. may have ordered that. So what? He may not have. It was a possibility. That's how they rolled back then.

    Churchill (dickhead) didn't, apparently, source that claim. However, that shows what kind of quibblefuq he is, it doesn't mean you dismiss history out of hand. You dismiss HIM out of hand. And then kick him (only figuratively) in the taint. (actually you should stay away from him completely. Teh JACKAZZ!!11!!lolz is contagious.)

    There was a great deal of cruelty in war/ aggression back when. There still is.

    hier is exactly an example (kinda graphic)

    or - if you're threatened that Lord JA would have done such a thing (why on earth?), just think of what Mayor Johnson said when discussing Louis Pasteur and hoof/mouth disease: NEVER MIND THAT SHIT. HERE COMES MONGO!

    and WHY ARE YOU THREATENED BY THAT?????

    jeezuz. you sound like a bunch of europeans whining that their countries "never" traded in slaves (when they actually did)... argh!

  • Bopo||

    "The highway of death thing did happen, may not have ben 100,000 -- but we're talking 1000s or 10,000s -- several reporters were on the scene and documented this. Washington Pravda's account is sloppy journalism"

    And we are to believe this merely on your say-so? I guess you have more credibility than the multitude of reporters that were there who claim about 100 people were killed. It was not just people from one newspaper making this claim. But hey you were probably in Jr. High when it happened, so you must be reliable.

  • ||

    Actually, there is no longer any question at all that Jeffrey Amherst (and not General Belcher, whose only crime was...un...massive corruption) ordered the distribution of the smallpox blankets.

    If you google "Amherst Smallpox Blankets," the very first link you find is contains links to a letter from Amherst's field commander recommending the practice, and to part of Amherst's letter ordering it carried out.

    The important part here, joshua corning and TWC, isn't that you were wrong. The important part is WHY you were wrong.

    You need to start basing your beliefs on something more substantial than Jonah Goldberg disease, because this kneejerk denialism of whatever lefties say keep leading you astray.

  • Chavez is a thug||

    "It's a shame that this episode will almost certainly encourage them to try to pull the same stunt on legitimate professors"

    I still don't understand why it would be a shame to investigate someone's record. If the individual did not commit academic fraud, he has nothing to worry about. Academic writings are a matter of public record, or would you prefer they be kept private to insulate professors, most of which are paid with our tax-dollar, from scrutiny concerning their scholarship. Boy, that system would definitely guarantee academic integrity.

  • VM||

    thanks joe - checked that out!

    My bad for guessing it was a plot by those evil Williams Purple Cows...

    :)

    srsly - why be threatened guys?

    it also reminds me of those people who got all upset, n all, like, when they found out that Thomas Jefferson probably sired children out of wedlock. With a slave. Who wasn't of the european persuasion.

    Isn't one of the whole parts of libertarianism is knowledge and understanding the conditions, contexts, borders, and playing field? Denial certainly does not belong there.

    You take the good outcomes with the bad, you take the information that is palatable and unpalatable for you, and you make the best decisions possible. How does denial reconcile?

    Or - how do denial and cherry-picking of historical events differentiate the Ward Churchills from the other deniers-for-ideology in the world?

  • ||

    "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" - seriously, thug, that's your argument?

    Politically-based witch hunts against professors are a bad thing. I didn't realize that was such a controversial position.

    Nice straw man about keeping people's academic work secret, though. I'll get right on that, as soon as I'm doning stomping on these kittens.

  • Chavez is a thug||

    There's snark in your post (and others'), but I don't get why - Lord J.A. may have ordered that. So what? He may not have. It was a possibility. That's how they rolled back then.

    Churchill (dickhead) didn't, apparently, source that claim. However, that shows what kind of quibblefuq he is, it doesn't mean you dismiss history out of hand. You dismiss HIM out of hand. And then kick him (only figuratively) in the taint. (actually you should stay away from him completely. Teh JACKAZZ!!11!!lolz is contagious



    Churchill's claim concerning smallpox blankets involved the AMERICAN Army giving blankets to a particular Indian tribe. There is no substantive evidence the United States Army ever gave blankets with smallpox to American Indians, unless you thing LORD Jeffrey Amherst was an American soldier (I would have thought the lord would have given it away). You can get the info for this at www.whythehelldoesjoethinkheknowseverything.com/mastersdegree

  • Chavez is a thug||

    So now we are calling an investigation of publically available material a witch hunt. Engage in hyperbole much, joe?
    And you claim I am erecting a straw man. Haha.

  • VM||

    thug -

    huh?

    the typing was blurred from all the spittle you were generating, so I'm genuinely lost of what you're trying to say...

  • Chavez is a thug||

    The first part of my post was a quote from someone else. I forgot the quotation marks.

  • VM||

    yeah - I kinda figured that you weren't pulling a joe biden there. the second part.

  • ||

    thug,

    Any time you can find a reference to the American army in anything I wrote, or a defense of Churchill's scholarship, you'll let us know, right?

    So now we are calling an investigation of publically available material a witch hunt.

    A witch hunt can involve the use of publically available material, yes. It's not the source of the information used by the witch hunters that make it a witch hunt. When the McCarthyites accused General Marshall of being "a conscious agent of international Communism," they presented publically available letters and reports he made as evidence.

    You know, at a certain point, it's going to start dawning on you that I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

  • Chavez is a thug||

    "Any time you can find a reference to the American army in anything I wrote, or a defense of Churchill's scholarship, you'll let us know, right?

    Firstly, the given quote was not yours. Secondly, since this is a thread about Ward Churchill, one can reasonably assume that discussion concerning smallpox blankets was in regard to Churchill's writings on the subject. And as the quote I made in my post made clear, individuals were in fact erroneously assuming that Churchill was discussing any incident concering blankets, and not a particular incident, which in fact, never occured.
    And lastly, uncovering evidence of academic misconduct is not even remotely analogous to the Mccarthy era, unless you think fraud, including plagiarism, should be protected by the first amendment. Examining an individuals academic record is not a witch hunt, no matter how hysterically you claim it is. Does this mean that the vetting process that occurs prior to hiring or the granting of tenure is only acceptable to you if the individual is not some lunatic bigot; taking your argument to its logical conclusion, it would seem you do think that.
    It may dawn on me that you may be right every now and then if you would stop arrogantly putting yourself forth as the definitive voice of reason on every single thread on this message board.

  • ||

    @ bob-cat
    The sciences:liberal arts :: traning:education
    A careful reading of my posting refutes your "traning(sic):education" comparison of liberal arts versus the sciences. I was "trained" in science and engineering and was able to locate research in education and ed psych, fields that were new to me, that refuted the assertions of a tenured Ph.D. Professor of Education, who was by definition an "authority." That sounds to me as if I had been well-educated.

    As others have noted, your spell-checking needs improvement. That supports my assertion that those in the "liberal arts" often lack rigor. At the same time, I do not always spell-check myself.

  • ||

    wow.

    Third thread in about a week to get into the Amherst smallpox debate. Links and evidence provided every single time.

    Think of it like fossils.
    One well documented incident might mean that it was something that was done more commonly, (or it might not, hard to prove). A tactic used in 1763 by the British (also used against the American in Canada, iirc), would certainly have been remembered by the US army as hostilities increased during expansion.

    Churchill, who is a twit, claims the smallpox claim is based on Native American oral history.

    Demonstrating that oral history is accurate is tough to do. Churchill wasn't up to the task.

  • ||

    Secondly, since this is a thread about Ward Churchill, one can reasonably assume that discussion concerning smallpox blankets was in regard to Churchill's writings on the subject.

    Let's go to the tape: BTW, I don't know squat about Churchill's "scholarship," but a letter in General (Amherts's) hand, describing how he ordered smallpox-infected blankets distributed to local Indians during some war or other, was found a year or two ago.

    No, thug, it cannot be reasonably assumed that I was talking about Churchill's scholarship. I was talking about objective, factual, proven history, and explicity stated that I wasn't talking about Churchill's scholarship.

    And lastly, uncovering evidence of academic misconduct is not even remotely analogous to the Mccarthy era, unless you think fraud, including plagiarism, should be protected by the first amendment.

    There were actual cases of Communist espionage uncovered in the 50s, too, thug. That didn't make McCarthyism legitimate. It was a witch hunt, and a partisan one at that, despite the fact that it was being carried out allegedly in the name of a legitimate goal.

    Examining an individuals academic record is not a witch hunt, no matter how hysterically you claim it is. That would depend on how it is done.

    Does this mean that the vetting process that occurs prior to hiring or the granting of tenure is only acceptable to you if the individual is not some lunatic bigot;

    No, not even remotely.

    taking your argument to its logical conclusion, it would seem you do think that.

    I don't think you know what "logical conclusion" means.

    It may dawn on me that you may be right every now and then if you would stop arrogantly putting yourself forth as the definitive voice of reason on every single thread on this message board.

    A rather damning admission from you. You cannot make a reliable judgement about information you are given because of the personality and politics of the people who bring it to your attention. Lemme guess - Bush voter, right?

  • VM||

    joe - that was my comment he was spittling on.

    I still don't get where you're going? French-Indian war (my college was on a treaty line from that war - horribly enough, Ward C was invited to speak there! argh!)

    Dismiss what churchill said all the way. We should.

    Boludo is obviously bitter he didn't get into Williams or Amherst. Cuz there's no rigor there.
    Just understand that forms of germ warfare were used, so it's a pretty much "no big deal" even to raise that claim. It's not even a "gotcha". It's a "so?"

    then point and laugh at ward.

  • The Wine Commonsewer®||

    VM, I don't see it as denial. The whole idea of deliberate smallpox infection was invented in the 1970's and is purely revisionist in nature.

    Nobody (or at least me) denies the trail of tears, or the horrors of slavery, or even that Jeff and Sally were doing the tango.

    The issue is reality and when one deliberately clouds or distorts reality to make a point (any point) then one's credibility is diminished.

    But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. If it's on the internet don't that make it so? And you know what else? The American government blew up the twin towers.

  • ||

    Actually, the use of smallpox blankets was first described in history book published in 1851, and has been confirmed by a letter in Lord Jeffrety Amherst's hand, which he sent to a battlefield commander during the Pontiac Rebellion of 1763. They actually link to a scan of the post-script in one of the links.

    Google is your friend.

  • dhex||

    "There are no such fad movements regarding Newton's second law."

    obviously. but the comparison is so apples and oranges that it seems insane when some numbnut (and there are quite a few, sadly) writer of culture/lit reads the back jacket of kuhn's book and pulls a "that's just like, your opinion man" out of his or her ass to dismiss a science or math field or finding that runs counter to their beliefs. or to dismiss the idea that some things are 1 and some things are 0 and that's that.

    plainly put, people aren't math problems, and building a bridge isn't the same thing as writing poetry. i wouldn't want to listen to poetry that had been constructed from a list of instructions (even tristan tzara mad libs get old after a while) and i'm sure none of us want to travel across a bridge that had been constructed like a poem. as someone who only knows enough math to do simple statistics or program synthesizers, i have nothing but respect for folks who speak that occult language.

  • Chavez is a thug||

    "No, thug, it cannot be reasonably assumed that I was talking about Churchill's scholarship. I was talking about objective, factual, proven history, and explicity stated that I wasn't talking about Churchill's scholarship."

    That is why I didn't quote you in my post. Unless you are posting under a different name. You are so fucking arrogant, you think everything on this board revolves around you. That is why I enjoy making jokes involving you.
    As for logical conclusions, you seem to be saying it is ok to investigate a lunatic and his writings prior to being hired, but not after. What exactly is the difference? I guess issues of integrity are moot after an individual actually starts teaching impressionable college students.


    ATTENTION THE FOLLOWING IS A QUOTE FROM JOE:
    "It's a shame that this episode will almost certainly encourage them to try to pull the same stunt on legitimate professors, but that's no reason to keep Churchill in his position"

    I am curious how exactly uncovering a long history of academic fraud and deceit is a stunt? That statement would seem to imply that you belief the Churchill affair was a "witchhunt". But then you begrudgingly admit that Churchill should have been fired. Well, which was it joe? An unprincipled witchhunt or a justifiable investigation and termination of this fraud? You can't even keep your principles straight in the space of one sentence and yet you criticize others for logical inconsistency?

  • Bill||

    What some people are forgetting is that CU-B didn't need to go on a fishing expedition when they started their investigation. Some of the complaints had been sitting on the dock for a while getting ripe from the rotting resentment from the ignored complainants. When the Eichmann comment came out, it became a window by which complainants could get new traction form their complaints.

    Arguably in light of the old complaints, Churchill was not *fired* for his politics, but *retained* for his politics until people outside of his protective bubble found out about them. At that point, there was little that could be done to protect him. After all, these complaints about his *published* (read public) conduct cannot be dismissed as "fishing" for "new" issues with Ward. Once it's out there, it's out there and free for review.

    As such Churchill's only legitimate defense is that the misconduct was supported by CU-B and as such CU-B was a standing accomplice in his bad behavior. Not something I'd want to bring to court, if I were him!

    It also creates a nasty precedent. As soon as you find yourself behind an eight ball of your own misconduct. All you have to do is say something noxious to the larger community but popular in your bubble and, Presto!, you are safe.

  • VM||

    Nuff of this Ward Churchill talk.

    Let's check out his wife, June. Is she hot?

    (or did he turn his disease-soiled condom around to declare germ warfare on her for faking it that one time)

    ewwww.

  • ||

    That is why I enjoy making jokes involving you.

    Ah, I get it; jokes. See, the lack of humor must have been throwing me off.

    you seem to be saying it is ok to investigate a lunatic and his writings prior to being hired, but not after. No, not even remotely.

    Well, which was it joe? An unprincipled witchhunt or a justifiable investigation and termination of this fraud?i>

    Both. The two are not contractory - it was an unprincipled witch-hunt based on politics, that uncovered actual academic fraud. This is only a difficlut concept to grasp if you really, really want it to be.

    I've tried to disabuse you of your silly and self-serving misreadings of what I wrote several times already, but you're clearly too emotionally invested in your position to notice, so I'm done with you.

  • Inspector Tagger||

  • ||

    The strong, silent type, apparently.

  • Urkobold™||

    JOE! BE ADVISED THAT YOUR ITALICS PRIVILEGES HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED! FURTHER MISUSE OF HTML TAGS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND MAY RESULT IN PERMANENT REVOCATION OF YOUR PRIVILEGES AS WELL AS FINES AND IMPRISONMENT!

    YOU WILL NOT BE WARNED AGAIN!

  • ||

    "A rather damning admission from you. You cannot make a reliable judgement about information you are given because of the personality and politics of the people who bring it to your attention. Lemme guess - Bush voter, right?"

    Gosh Joe, what a pompous ass you are sometimes. But don't let my observation make you think I don't like you :-).

  • ||

    I give as good as I get, and make no apologies.

  • ||

    You can have my italics tags when you pull them from my cold, dead taint.

  • jwpaine||

    Good catch, Mr. Maynihan. Having studied Churchill's writings for the past 2-1/2 years, I can only surmise that virtually every "fact" he posits is cut from whole cloth.

  • Urkobold™||

    JOE, YOU ARE MESSING WITH THE WRONG TROLL. BEHOLD YOUR FIRST PUNISHMENT.

  • ||

    Eh. At least he didn't sentence me to BE GUY MONTAG.

    That was horrible to see.

  • ||

    I never understood why this twit was famous, aside from hyperventilating Reds pointing and yelping at his antics.

  • Urkobold™||

    TRULY, THE URKOBOLD'S ARSENAL OF PUNISHMENTS IS EXTENSIVE AND NASTY.

  • ||

    Satan, get the behind me.

  • Alex Karras||

    WEBSTER!!!!!!!!

  • Mr Drummond||

    Thief!

  • Benson||

    DAMMIT. WRONG SIT COM.

    *Kicks Matthew Starr in the taint.

    WHERE ARE YOUR POWERS NOW, BIATCH! DOUBLE OVER BIATCH. DOUBLE OVER BEFORE ZOD, BIATCH!

    *hides from Klaus

  • han||

    This should make it obvious

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement