Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
On the other hand, if you lie on your application you might want to think twice about calling unnecessary attention to yourself. I have to wonder how much actual deceipt was in his application, because if it is there the University doesn't have to fuck with him - they can just outright fire the everliving shit out of him.
|
That was my thinking.
If you have all of this crap in the background that could get you fired, drawing attention to yourself is pretty stupid....or.....very arrogant. I think the later in the case of Churchill.
They can't just fire him, he has tenure and must go through this disciplinary thing which will last two years.
roach -
How is this a right-wing thing? The school is doing this to him and they are far from right-wing.
Shouldn't your anger be pointed at the liberal school administrators that discipling him. If your feelings about this are true, aren't these guys just caving into pressure from the right? Doesn't speak very highly of them if they are willing to cave in so quickly does it?
Or........maybe Churchill is an ass and a liar and should be fired. Stranger things have happened you know.
The evidence against him is pretty strong. The only questionable thing about this, I think, is that they waited until now to go after him.
As far as his ethnicity, you can say whatever you want--it is obvious you know very little about this.
He used his Native America status in order to secure a position under Affirmative Action. However, the very nation that he claims to be a part of, says he isn't Native American.
Having gone through the process to secure the Native American heritage of my kids I know the process and it is very detailed, tedious and a pain-in-the-ass to go through.
This is from the official report that came out today:
LINK
Quote:
c. Is there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation by misrepresenting himself as a Native American in order either to gain an employment-related benefit or to add credibility and public acceptance to his scholarship?
The reviewers received multiple generalized accusations that Professor Churchill is not, in fact, Indian, and that he has misrepresented his Indian status in a way material to his employment status and his work as a scholar. Professor Churchill's claim of Indian ethnicity dates at least to his self-identification on a 1979 application for employment at the University, and is perpetuated by the notation "Tribal Enrollment: United Keetoowah Band Cherokee (Roll No. R7627)" on his curriculum vita. It also appears that Professor Churchill has used his claimed Indian status to attract an audience for his work and to add credibility to it. He has used an "Indian voice," speaking of "my people" and "we."53 The title of one of his books, From a Native Son, implies that he speaks as an American Indian. At times he has claimed ancestry in three tribes. He started one speech: "I bring you greetings from the Elders of the Keetoowah band of Cherokee, my mother's people." In another work he refers to ". . .my father's people, the Creeks."55 He writes that "I am an enrolled Keetowah Band Cherokee."56 Principal Chief Wickliffe of the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee reported to the reviewers that an "associate" of the band is not enrolled in the tribe; associate membership is merely an honorary designation, like an honorary degree from a university.
The question of Professor Churchill's Indian status raises two separate but related issues. First, did Professor Churchill misrepresent his Indian status on an employment application and, as a result, gain an employment advantage? This question arose in 1994 when certain Indian leaders communicated with the University claiming, among other things, that Professor Churchill lied on his application about his Indian heritage. The then Boulder campus chancellor reviewed this complaint and concluded that University policy permitted self-identification. The chancellor noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the position that observation and self identification are the most reliable indicators of ethnicity. The chancellor declined to pursue the matter. The question about Professor Churchill's employment application must be considered closed as a result of this ten-year old review.
A remaining question is whether Professor Churchill has attempted to gain a scholarly voice, credibility, and an audience for his scholarship by wrongfully asserting that he is an Indian. There is evidence that Professor Churchill's assertion of his Indian status is material to his scholarship, yet there is serious doubt about his Indian identity. The evidence is sufficient to warrant referral of this question to the Committee on Research Misconduct for inquiry and, if appropriate, investigation to determine whether Professor Churchill relies on his Indian identity in his scholarship and, if so, whether he has fabricated that identity. The Committee should inquire as to whether Professor Churchill can assert a reasonable basis for clarifying such identity.57
|
I suggest you read the report link above--there is a lot of stuff there about Churchill
Quote:
Rocky Mountain News
To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...519179,00.html
Prof's Indian roots disputed
By Stuart Steers, Rocky Mountain News
February 3, 2005
The United Keetoowah Band Cherokee says University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is not a member of their tribe.
"He's not in the database at all and is not a member of the Keetoowah," said Georgia Mauldin, the tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla.
In his books and articles, Churchill has described himself as a member of the Keetoowah Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma. In past interviews, he's claimed to be one-sixteenth Cherokee.
But the Keetoowah say that's not true.
Attempts to contact Churchill for comment Wednesday on his background were unsuccessful. But Churchill's claim to American Indian roots has been challenged repeatedly by people in that community.
One Montana woman has an especially personal tale of confronting Churchill on his claim to American Indian heritage. She was taking one of Churchill's classes at CU in 1994 when she wrote an article for the Colorado Daily newspaper, saying there was no evidence he had any American Indian background.
"For so long it was whispered on campus that he really isn't an Indian," said Jodi Rave, who studied journalism at CU. "Here you had the director of the Indian studies program and he's not an Indian."
Rave is a Mandan-Hidatsa Indian originally from North Dakota. Today, she is a reporter and columnist with the Missoulian newspaper in Missoula, Mont. She was recently a fellow in the prestigious Nieman program for journalists at Harvard University.
In one of her journalism classes at CU, Rave was assigned to write a profile, and she decided to profile Churchill.
"To have somebody of that stature masquerading as an Indian was intriguing to me," Rave said. "On two separate days I asked him questions. I was up-front in asking him questions (about his background)."
Rave says she discovered that Churchill had enrolled in the Keetoowah tribe under a program initiated by a former tribal chairman that let almost anyone sign up. She says the Keetoowah later discontinued that program and disenrolled the people who had joined under it.
When her article came out, Rave says Churchill was furious and insisted that he did have American Indian lineage.
"He called me and said, 'Jodi Rave, this is your professor and I need to talk to you right away.' He was surprised I had a story published that called into question his identity."
He also defended his American Indian background and said her story was unfair.
Rave said she was enrolled in one of Churchill's classes when the article came out, and her grade went from an A to a C-minus.
She says Churchill can write what he wants, but his claim of American Indian heritage is bogus.
"There's no denying what he writes resonates with a lot of people, but when he says this is something he's experienced as a Native American man, that's fraudulent," Rave said.
The question of who is and who is not an American Indian is a sensitive one in that community. Many Indians resent the idea that only those who grew up on a reservation or have two American Indian parents are real Indians.
"Tracking blood lines is the business of Nazi Germany and South Africa (under apartheid)," said professor George Tinker, who teaches American Indian culture and religious tradition at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver. "That's not an Indian issue at all."
Tinker said that it should be up to the tribes themselves to decide who is an Indian.
|
This is not an easy guy to defend.