Originally posted on June 26, 2006.

^.^

Last February, I gave my opinions on Ward Churchill, a professor at the University of Colorado, who referred to people working in the World Trade Center as "Little Eichmanns" in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

As far as I am concerned, I would not want to be associated with such a person, and if I were the university in Boulder, I would work toward dropping this guy like a rock. Sure, Mr. Churchill has a right to free speech, but as I have said before, just because you can asy something doesn't mean you should.

As I said last year, "I find these views to be utterly insulting and nonsensical, and I for one find comfort in the fact that the majority of the reaction on this subject from responsible human beings has been pretty much right where it should be...outright and utter condemnation."

However, I also said that Ward Churchill would be fired, but that it would not be because of his "Little Eichmanns" comment. Rather, Churchill will be fired because of his impropriety surrounding what was called in a statement by the Chancellor of the university, "research misconduct"...in other words, he plagarized some materials from others, and he simply made a whole bunch of stuff up.

Other allegations stem from the charge that Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity in order to gain employment at the university, and then to gain "credibility and an audience for scholarship", to quote the UC Chancellor's statement...which means that he tried to claim he was part American-Indian to give his research work more credibility and to give himself more academic standing. The committee that studied these allegations said that these particular accusations might represent "research misconduct and failure to meet the standards of professional integrity."

About mid-way down the statement, the Chancellor levels the verdict in this case:

"Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado, Boulder."

Of course, this is not quite over. Mr. Churchill may appeal the case, and it will then be heard by a special committee. He has also said that if he is fired by the university, he will turn around and sue them.

I think that the university should stick to their guns and rid themselves of an embarassment.

As a recent student, I must say that the primary goal of any facility of higher education is to provide students with what they need to get and keep a job within the American workplace. Most of everything else is window dressing.

Because of this, and because of the fact that students and parents PAY for the education they get at universities, while academia may like to trumpet their First Amendment rights, your First Amendment rights stop at the classroom door. I don't pay for YOUR opinions, or YOUR agendas. I pay for facts.

So, where do opinions come into the classroom, and they rightly do in some cases? When a discussion drifts into opinion, or when a professor asks for opinions, then I wouldn't have a problem. The presentation of opinions is an excellent way to challenge people's beliefs, which should happen. However, the professor should never present his or her opinions as the concrete fact, and students should never be tested on their professor's opinions, nor should they be penalized if they disagree with their professor. Now I must say that when I was able to detect a slant with a professor, they were never a part of the tests for those classes.

Another issue that comes up is that Ward Churchill's research has been spoiled by the use of bad research work, and flat-out plagarism. These are the bane of journalism, of general research work, and within my field of politics and history. People doing research in areas that Churchill worked in will not be able to faithfully use his works to support their arguments. Churchill's findings themselves should not be taken on their own, and basically, all of this becomes a big problem for people who advocate or are interested in these topics.

All around, research misconduct and plagarism are a big headache for professors who are professional in their work and their studies, as well as a big headache for students interested in turning in quality research.

The time for bashing Mr. Churchill over his insane comments is over. The "jury" has spoken in the case of his research misconduct and plagarism, and the verdict is clear.

Ward Churchill's days at Colorado University are numbered, and we should thank the leadership at the university for their decisive action.

---
John B.
Blog Guy

BACK