President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 25, 2007 06:09 AM UTC
54 Comments
Loading ...
If he plagirized than he should be let go, but that is still an accusation, and as far as I know it hasnt been proven.
If this is about his essay on 9/11, written on 9/12, which gained notoreity three years after it was published, than he should not be fired.
But the plagiarism charges seemed pretty solid the last time I read about them.
Still, all this controversy was stirred up because of what he said about 9/11. Not that it wasn’t supid, insensitive (to say the very least) and ultimately unworthy of anyone wanting to call himself an intellectual, but it was his right to say it and he shouldn’t suffer any consequences for exercising his right to free speech. I suppose we’ll have to be satisfied with a just result even if it wasn’t motivated by the right thing.
It has been a long time since I read anything about Ward Churchhill, so the plagiarism charges may be solid.
I wanted to go on, but I promised my girlfriend I would make dinner.
Churchhill is a blowhard who only has a masters degree, but I see this as damaging to the tenure system, which I feel must be preserved, especially in a case similar to this. The article quoted an education professor who said that boosters and conservative foundations were threatening to withhold funds unless they fired churchhill. I understand that public universities rely on outside funding, but being beholden to purely conservative financial interests is something that I wish our public higher education system is something that we dont have to rely on.
Like I said, churchhill is a blowhard and it is shocking that he only had a masters degree, yet he still had tenure. He was definitely a firebrand, and after his essay was brought to national attention he became a lightening rod for liberalism in colleges.
Ethnic studies is a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion, but it became lampooned as an unnecessary, or worthless, degree, because churchhill was a professor of it.
was an act that damaged the tenure system. Some other university was interested in hiring him, or so CU thought, so they fast tracked him to tenure. This was in the early 90s when CU was looking to shore up their Native American Studies cred at a time when American academia was falling all over itself trying to be on the right side of the racial question, whatever that was. (This was the early 90s when that was a hot topic – I can’t say for sure but nowadays it doesn’t seem as loaded as it used to be.) Churchill had not earned tenure in the way most professors had to. He really was in the right place at the right time.
Granting him tenure hurt CU and not the tenure system, or at least I hope that is the case. I dont disagree with you on any other point.
I hope so too. And I hope that this serves as a textbook example of why universities need to follow the system as it was designed and not place value on campus politics when evaluating professors. But we’ll see.
My understanding is that three committees of faculty investigated the charges of plagiarism charges, and found solid evidence. They also recommended that he be fired. That’s probably the reason why the vote was so lop-sided. 8-1 is a pretty good margin.
First, the only committee that could charge him and try him is the P&T. And they are the ones that said that he should undergo a 1 year suspension, and a MAJOR demotion, because they did not have solid proof. They absolutely did not want him fired. The regents acted in accordance to what brown, an old republican, wanted. They went against what is the tradition, what is spelled out, and what what recommended. In the end, Ward is going to walk away a millionare, have his old position back, and will quite probably have a new lease on life. In fact, after the trial, and we lose, we will pay not just the penalty (back pay and a major penalty), but if a pub is in charge, they will probably offer him 10 million to step aside. The original P/T recomendation would have accomplished what was needed.
Gov. Ritter agrees with the firing.
http://www.denverpos…
Looks like Dems are jumping ship too…
Most Dems were never on the ship.
Personally I despise Churchill. I hate his “I’m an indian, see I have long hair” posturing.
I worked with a guy who was quarter native american, his grandmother lived on the reservation, yet he never claimed to be an indian. It was part of his heritage, but it wasn’t his identity. Even when he was applying to graduate public policy programs where rightfully claiming his quarter heritage would have given him a leg up, he didn’t. He didn’t feel it was right to claim an identity to help himself, when those preferences were designed to help truly desperate folks on the res. I always admired his integrity. He was a dem. In fact he worked for Joann Conti in 2004 against tancredo. I haven’t seen him in a few years and I hope he got himself into a good program.
Windbourne is right however, that this is probably going to end up costing the state quite a bit of money.
The pubs AGAIN have a bad plan and the dems are supporting it because they are afraid to do what is right. I do not agree with W.C. (for some odd reason, it is easier to call him ward, though I have never met him nor have a desire to). But to break the tenure is far worse, than allowing him to stay. All he did was to accuse W. of nasty things as well as say that 9/11 victims were partially to blame. That is NOT that big of a deal. In fact, if he really did plagerized and stole, then that is FAR worse in my book. But if it occurred prior to tenure, or was overlooked, then the university is to blame.
I stand corrected.
The dems agreed with W. about invading Iraq. It does not make it right. Just like Iraq, this is a case of idiots leading the foolish/cowards who are afraid to have a backbone. Within 2 years, this state will be PISSED at Owens, Brown, and mostly Ritter. Why mostly Ritter? Because he will be the ONLY one left. The others will be gone. But it will be obvious within 2 years that Ward is winning this lawsuit, and citizens will wonder why nobody was pushing for what the P/T recommended. Interestingly, I will bet that at least several ppl here will change their tune on this and will not remember that they supported Brown on this illegal action.
This whole thing is VERY analogous to Iraq. In particular, the P/T was seeking to contain him the way that Poppa Bush contained Huisen. Just as W.should have supported the legal mechanism, Brown should have backed the legal mechanism that was in place (the P/T). Right now, you have a number of folks are going after Ward on items that do not matter. The items that were brought up were PRIOR to tenure. If any of those occured after tenure, and the university already investigated or allowed it to slide, then THEY are ones who are wrong.
When this goes to the Supreme Court, the court will either let the last ruling stand (if it means keeping his firing in tact) or overturn it to keep him out. He won’t win.
But the Supreme Court is “conservative” enough that Schumer is trying to make the case that the Senate shouldn’t confirm another Bush appointee to the Supreme Court should one come up again.
What you are saying is that judicial activism is the reason why Churchill will lose, not due to any legal principle or precedent.
Forgive me, but I’m not a lawyer or anything. I don’t need to sight a source for my own thoughts, do I?
But just stating that the court will overturn the case because they are conservative is ridiculously simplistic, or its tacitly stating that rule of law is superfluous to party allegiance. In effect, you say that conservative judicial activism is ok.
Is what’s ridicously simplistic here. You’re assuming that party affliation is what drives people and not values. Am I saying that conservative judical activism is ok? No. But I would certainly prefer conservative judical activism than I would prefer liberal judical activism because one coincides with my values-which is why I chose to be a Republican.
Funny though-liberals only whine about “judical activism” when the conservatives are doing it, just like how the conservatives only whine about it when the liberals are doing it. So are you in favor of activism or restraint?
Activism and restraint are two overly simplistic terms that have no real definition short of I dont like that decision so it must be. The obvious rhetorical question then becomes, how do you define activisim and restraint?
If believing that the constitution is a living, breathing document, which must be viewed under the lens of today, is activism than I am in favor of activism.
When I hear people, common everyday people, talk about judicial activism, it is clear that they have, a, absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and, b, this snappy comeback because they heard it from the likes of Rush.
I couldnt point to the last time I heard a liberal, besides the parent post, use the term conservative activism. Speaking of which, my main point was that you think Churchill will lose purely because the supreme court, of which I can only assume you mean SCOTUS, is composed of conservatives. Regardless of “your values,” there is still rule of law which trumps your values.
Toodles,
Where have you been? Or are you just indecisive?
Any faculty member or student defending Churchill at this point is guilty of having no integrity by association, imho.
I havent followed this at all, because I dont care about Churchill.
The university has had many embarrasments in the past that are much more high profile than this.
I will grant you number two.
People in college are not children. Maybe you and I are looking at this from two different viewpoints, you the parent with daughters about to enter college, and me the relatively recent college grad and for law student.
I will grant you that some people in college are more impressionable than others, but no one entering college is a child, and no one should see them as such.
but your brain is not fully developed until about 24. And while we as parents see you through your education your are still in a sense a child.
You are also definitly a young adult. But we as parents, teachers, etc need to do our best to support and educate you up to and through college.
Churchill was not doing that…
We may still be children, but we are afforded adult status in many ways, including choosing our education. But this is not about me, and looking over what I wrote I shouldnt have phrased this as a you vs me. For that I apologize.
Who is to stay that Churchill was not supporting or educating his students? I want to repeat that I oppose his firing for the reasons that I fumbled earlier, and windbourne has fantastically, in my opinion, stated, but I dont agree with him. He seemed to have quite a cheering section which leads me to believe that at least some people feel they were adequately educated under his tutelage.
My wife teaches at CU, and she has kids show up to class in pajamas, cry when they can’t figure something out or something dosen’t go right, and one student told her she was scared because ” My mom isn’t with me “. She has a lot of bright and serious students, but some are indeed still children.
The ones in PJ;s, would they happen to have fluffy little rabbit slippers?
I was contemplating the immortal words of socrates;
and all sort of little adolescent cutesy stuff like that. It drives my wife insane !
Just today I showed up for a test and didnt bother changing out of my pajama pants.
I at least hope it was because you were too busy studying Dabee.
Before dropping out in the early ’70s, he’d show up in pajamas to class. But that hasn’t stopped the university from giving Murray an honorary degree:
http://www.denverpos…
On it he discovers child porn. He turns the computer over to the police. The police arrest the computer owner based on the info from the thief.
Is this ok? The arrest only occurs because a thief stole the computer? Because this actually occured.
Yes this all got started because of what Churchill said. But saying something controversial should not then shield you from legitimate reasons for being fired.
And Churchill is clearly no scholar. He has no business pretending to be either a scientist or a teacher. He is like the corrupt sadistic cop – he hurts the reputation of every good professor by his actions in the job he had.
The real interesting question is how many more professors are also coasting on shoddy research…
I am getting so tired of hearing people say CU is violating his first amendment rights – its about his documented plagiarism and creation of fictitious sources.
Ward held himself up to this scrutiny through all of his sanctimonius nonsense anyway. As they say, let he who has no sin cast the first stone.
Bye Ward, and good riddance. And you’re not even an Indian.
but no one gave a shit til some New Yorkers kicked up a fuss when he was supposed to give a lecture out there and his essay came to light. That started this whole process.
CU is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
It’s about a man who lied to get his job, lied on the job and is still lying, imho.
That’s why he was fired, and he doesn’t have a chance in court, but Lane is willing to do anything for publicity, even if it costs him big bucks.
The university had plenty of other times to investigate him before and found him not guilty. I suspect that in the end he will be re-instated to his OLD position (chairman), given millions in retribution, his lawyer will be paid TOP dollars, and this will prove that tenure trumps all. At that time, many other universities will try to lower the bar on dismissal during tenure, even though it is a VERY important item.
I prefered the earlier actions that was suggested. He should have gotten the normal punishment for his egression;
As it is, there is no proof that any of those actions for which he is charged are true, other than his admission (save the tribe issue which should not have played a part in getting into the university).
“As it is, there is no proof that any of those actions for which he is charged are true”
Take a look here at just two examples of plagiarism below from professors who submitted information to the CU investigative committee:
Professor Thomas Brown of Lamar University forwarded information alleging that a theory Professor Churchill has published as fact-that the U.S. Army perpetuated genocide—is clearly contrary to the source Professor Churchill cites.40 Professor Churchill has asserted that the U.S. Army deliberately distributed smallpox-infested blankets to Mandan Indians in 1837, causing an epidemic in which over 100,000 people died.41 However, the source he cites is contrary to both the number of dead and his version of the story.42 Indeed, his source, Professor Russell Thornton of UCLA and other experts agree that the story is without historical basis.43 Professor Brown states:
Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them.44
Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University in Canada told the University of Colorado during this review that Professor Churchill plagiarized her work by publishing a chapter entitled “In Usual and Accustomed Places” in a book entitled The State of Native America.45 The chapter was nearly the same as an article entitled “Implementing Indian Treaty Fishing Rights: Conflict and Cooperation” that she had published in a volume edited by Professor Churchill.46 The book chapter showed the author to be “Institute for Natural Progress,” and the “About the Contributors” section of the book, in turn, attributed the work of the Institute of Natural Progress to Ward Churchill. In 1997 the Dalhousie University legal counsel rendered an opinion concluding that the chapter was plagiarized.”47
Also, even supposed supporters of Ward are admitting today that he is going to have an uphill battle in Denver court.
Churchill is a fraud and a liar, and being controversial dosen’t give you free license to commit academic misconduct. Thank God he’s gone.
The problem is like prosecuting a man for a taxes from 20 years ago; You are held responsible for only 7 years. In the academia world, what happened prior to tenure does not matter. All of his work was out there to be seen. The university should have done a better job of checking him over PRIOR to giving tenure. Once he has tenure, if he committed any of these, THEN he could be held accountable. But the P&T committee suggested the best course of action.
but if that is the case, I understand your point about tenure.
Lets find out now and fix it if necessary.
The idea of tenure is to prevent this very thing from occurring. He is being fired because he wrote something VERY controversial. The P&T committee review his situation, and you can bet that they wanted him out. And all they could come up with was what I suggested. And why did they pick that punishment? Because it is at the high-end of what they would give somebody else in this situation. Basically, imagine somebody is up for stealing a candy from a store. The judge recommends that the person serves the maximum penalty, but then another judge who does not know the whole story decides that the prisoner should be executed. That is what has happened. Ward is going to get a LARGE settlement in the end.
There were a number of issues here, but the most edgy one is that he was not indian/native american. The others would require his admitting that he did steal, but he will not do that.
In the end, this is a failure not of tenure, but of how he obtained tenure and how the state and university has turned on him. He should never have been fast tracked with out having prior tenure (i.e. a well known prof with a great track record wants to transfer; then you fast track). In addition, he really should have been given the punishment that the P&T wanted. It would have been far more damaging. Now, academians will come to his cause because the tenure relationship has been interfered with. They have no choice.
I’m sorry but his scholarship was so poor and his lying s blatant, I don’t think a University can keep any credibility as an academic institution while having him as an employee.
If C.U. is going to have academic standards, they needed to fire him. Yes he should never have been hired. Yes he should have been fired when these allegations first came up.
But to leave him there after it’s been made so clear that he is not a scholar – can’t do it.
he does. He is a “made” man. And sadly, he WILL be re-instated AND we will pay him millions more to get him out. Instead, had brown, et.al. did what the LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE group recommended, then he would be gone within 2 years (most likely 6 months), and with NO choices. More importantly, his career would be finished. Now, he will be rich, retired, and VERY well known. This is a done deal due to brown and all those that supported him on this. This will be no different than the ppl who backed W. on going to Iraq. Roughly, you have the fools leading the foolish.
With all that said, what needs to really happen is that the university system (that includes CU, CSU, and UNC’s) need to be revamped to prevent this. Tenure is a VERY important item. Ward should never have obtained tenure. When the theft issues first came up, the university should have done a better job checking into it. Finally, the firing of Ward should not have been allowed to happen. This really shows that Brown is TOTALLY unsuitable for the academia world and does not understand how important tenure is.
What does tenure actually get us? For the vast majority of professors they never say anything controversial and so it’s irrelevant for that protection.
On the flip side, it lets people stay in their job no matter how bad they are at it. When you weigh the pros and cons, I’m not sure we’re better off with it.
What does Socrates, Galileo, and churchill have in common? They were “fired” for speaking out. Of course, for the first, it was via hemlock, and for the second is was close to being a true firing.
Tenure is needed because Gov., university presidents, and even university supporters have forced out profs because others disagreed with them. Another good example would be the scopes trial in which a teacher was fired for teaching the truth. During the 50’s, profs were required to sign loyality oaths. If they did not, then they could be fired at a later time.
In the end, tenureship is NEEDED to allow a prof to speak out with something contriversial and know that they will not be nuked because it is unpopular. Consider the case of Global Warming. I guarentee that a LARGE number of profs would have been fired in many red states SAVE for tenure. As it is, they can not be touched (though some are pushed aside for their beliefs). Churchill is a good example of exactly why tenure is SO damn important. Few like what he said. I do not buy into his bunk. But in 20 years, society might. Why? because they will have more information. The simple fact is that as of now, there is no less than 1% of profs who will not publish a paper because they are concerned about being treated like WC. And in this day and age, they should be concerned.
The issue is not tenure. The issue is who it is being granted to. That needs to be looked at closely.
I saw Hank Brown on the news last night and he stated they will not settle any lawsuit with Churchill – CU is going to play hardball.
Brown will of course be gone by the time this is settled, but I really hope CU sticks to its guns and wins, so this sets an example for any future would be charlatans like Ward.
CU (and Colorado) will win this IFF he was not caught earlier and it happened after he obtained tenure. If all of his funny stuff occurred prior to tenure, and he kept a clean nose after that, then he will win. As to no settlement, well, what will happen once he is awarded chairmanship again? We will offer him a settlement to leave.
I don’t think Ward could make himself keep his nose clean if it were to save his life, so I think they will find plenty of “funny stuff” after tenure. His MO is lying, and it is demonstrated throughout a time span in his career. I don’t think Ward woke up one day and say, hey, I have tenure, I’m going to stop plagiarizing from this day on. My money is on this clown getting nothing.
windbourne,
Churchill obviously is guilty as charged or the university would have kept him and avoided all the hassle.
That everytime the last couple of days I have heard Ward on the radio or read his responses in the news paper, his quotes have made about as much sense as ozzy. I know what he’s trying to say, but it’s not the same as what he’s saying…
they’re both going off the rails on a crazy train !
something about bend and break…i’ll paraphrase what i got out of it:
“This ain’t about bend, and this is not about break!
This is about how much money I can make!!!”
A point that seems to have been missed by commentors is that it took the University 2 1/2 years to make a decision on a personnel matter and they had to escalate it to the Regents to make the decision.
That would be like the Board of Directors at Qwest making hiring/firing decisions and making that decision after agonizing over it for 2 1/2 years. (Come to think of it, may be that’s how Qwest actually operates. That may explain it’s $8.90 stock price.)
In my view, the political tragedy of the Ward Churchill affair is not whether Ward’s a plagarist or politically incorrect, but that we tolerate and spend tax dollars on such an inefficient organization.