The Report On Ward Churchill (Mayer @ UC Boulder in defense of WC)

[struggle4progress]

The Report On Ward Churchill
by Tom Mayer

... The report claims that Professor Churchill engaged in fabrication and falsification. To make these claims it stretches the meaning of these words almost beyond recognition. Fabrication implies an intent to deceive. There is not a shred of evidence that the writings of Ward Churchill contain any assertion that he himself did not believe. The language used in the report repeatedly drifts in an inflammatory direction: disagreement becomes misinterpretation, misinterpretation becomes misrepresentation, misinterpretation becomes falsification. Ward may be wrong about who was considered an Indian under the General Allotment Act of 1887 or about the origins of the 1837-1840 smallpox epidemic among the Indians of the northern plains, but the report does not establish that only a lunatic or a liar could reach his conclusions on the basis of available evidence.

The charges of fabrication and falsification all derive from short fragments within much longer articles. The report devotes 44 pages to discussing the 1837-1840 smallpox epidemic. One might think that Ward had written an entire book on this subject. In fact this issue occupies no more than three paragraphs in any of his writings. In each of the six essays cited in the report, all reference to this epidemic could have been dropped without substantially weakening the argument. To be sure, the account given by Ward is not identical to that found in any of his sources, but it is a recognizable composite of information contained within them. The committee peremptorily dismisses Churchill's contention that his interpretation of the epidemic was influenced by the Native American oral tradition. This is treated as no more than an ex post facto defense against the allegation of misconduct. The committee also discounts Native American witnesses who support Churchill's interpretations as well as his fidelity to oral accounts. The centrality of the oral tradition is evident in many of Churchill's writings. His acknowledgments frequently include elders, Indian bands, and the American Indian Movement. He often integrates Native American poetry with his historical analysis. Three of his books with which I am familiar, Since Predator Came (1995), A Little Matter of Genocide (1997), and Struggle for the Land (2002) all begin with poems. As a thirty-year veteran of the intense political struggles within the American Indian Movement, Ward Churchill could not avoid a deep familiarity with the oral tradition of Native American history ...

The operational definition of academic misconduct used by the investigating committee is so broad that virtually anyone who writes anything might be found guilty. Not footnoting an empirical claim is misconduct. Citing a book without giving a page number is misconduct. Referencing a source that only partially supports an assertion is misconduct. Referencing contradictory sources without detailing their contradictions is misconduct. Citing a work considered by some to be unserious or inadequate is misconduct. Footnoting an erroneous claim without acknowledging the error is misconduct. Interpreting a text differently than does its author is misconduct. Ghost writing an article is misconduct. Referencing a paper one has ghost written without acknowledging authorship is misconduct. No doubt this list of transgressions could be greatly expanded. I strongly suspect that many people who vociferously support the report have read neither it nor any book or essay Ward Churchill has ever written. Perhaps this should be deemed a form of academic misconduct.

If any of the sanctions recommended by the investigating committee are put into effect, it will constitute a stunning blow to academic freedom. Such punishment will show that a prolific, provocative, and highly influential thinker can be singled out for entirely political reasons; subjected to an arduous interrogation virtually guaranteed to find problems; and then severed from academic employment. It will indicate that public controversy is dangerous and that genuine intellectual heresy could easily be lethal to an academic career. It will demonstrate that tenured professors serve at the pleasure of governors, political columnists, media moguls, and talk show hosts. Most faculty members never say anything that requires protection. The true locus of academic freedom has always been defined by the intellectual outliers. The chilling effect of Ward Churchill's academic crucifixion upon the energy and boldness of these freedom-defining heretics will be immediate and profound ...

http://www.swans.com/library/art12/zig094.html

[rinsd]

1. The Constanza defense

"There is not a shred of evidence that the writings of Ward Churchill contain any assertion that he himself did not believe"

Its is not a lie if you believe it to be true.

"
The sanctions recommended by the investigating committee are entirely out of whack with those imposed upon such luminaries as Stephen Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Lawrence Tribe, all of whom committed plagiarisms far more egregious than anything attributed to Professor Churchill.
We also have an everbody does it, only my guy gets nailed argument."

"Referencing a paper one has ghost written without acknowledging authorship is misconduct"

Is this guy really a professor? Referencing something you yourself ghost wrote in support of something else you wrote is okay?

And lastly "His most strident claims may be rather dubious, but they stimulate our scholarly juices and make us rethink our evidence and assumptions"

In other words, it may not be true but it made us think...this guy is fucking teaching kids critical thinking skills?

Fuck we are in trouble.

[Atman]

2. Did we really need this in three forums?

And isn't that kinda against the rules? (not that I'm much of a "rules" kinda guy). Just sayin.

[struggle4progress]

3. Dunno for sure. I usually won't multiply post. But the Churchill story ...

... is important on several levels, and the press coverage is almost uniformly sensationalistic.

My understanding of the rules (which, of course, may not be what the mods intended) is that multiple posting is generally discouraged but may be allowed if there's a good reason.

There's almost nothing defending WC out there, so people who don't see this may never see anything.

And this is from a colleague of Churchill's, so it makes the point that not everyone agrees with the committee report: the issues raised by this colleague make it clear that extraordinary contortions were required to complain of Churchill's work. <edit for clarity here>: The piece also raises the important point that historical work is not merely a matter of citing prior authors as authorities -- in fact, reinterpretation can be appropriate and use of oral traditions may also be appropriate.

And Churchill is in many ways an important figure: his work on COINTELPRO is something every activist should read, because it exposes clearly how conservatives will use government to attack the opposition: IMO that's exactly why the wingnuts have had him in their sights for a while.

Since the author of this piece tried repeatedly to get it into the newspapers, I though editorials was an appropriate forum; since the action involves tenure questions, I thought education an appropriate forum; and since the whole thing is related to wingnut redmeat soundbites, I thought GD-politics an appropriate forum.

:)

[Igel]

4. This is worse than allegedly intentional falsehood.

It's saying he's too stupid and incompetent to be guilty of intentional falsehood.

Falsehood, nonetheless.

Immorality on the part of academics is far more tolerable than dunce-hood and delusion. At least the report allowed WC to retain *some* dignity.

[struggle4progress]

5. You misrepresent the article or don't understand it or haven't read it:

it certainly doesn't say Churchill's "too stupid and incompetent to be guilty of intentional falsehood."

[Igel]

6. I read it.

It leaves him without the ability to be morally and ethically responsible.

"There is not a shred of evidence that the writings of Ward Churchill contain any assertion that he himself did not believe."
In some places the sources are unequivocal. They say X, he says they say 'not X'. He simply can't read; he's too stupid to be culpable of lying. Or he's arrogant and he lied. I go for the latter; the writer goes with the former, as about the only implication left.

"Thus the main point of historical scholarship is not to recount the past, but rather to provide intellectual ammunition for preventing future genocides now in the making."
But academics are interested in truth, not in pushing for a given outcome. As a condition of his employment he agrees to certain standards. He's too blinded by advocacy to be responsible for holding them; his is either stupidity, or overweening moral superiority.

"(1) Not footnoting an empirical claim is misconduct. (2) Citing a book without giving a page number is misconduct. (3) Referencing a source that only partially supports an assertion is misconduct. (4) Referencing contradictory sources without detailing their contradictions is misconduct. (5) Citing a work considered by some to be unserious or inadequate is misconduct. )6) Footnoting an erroneous claim without acknowledging the error is misconduct. (7) Interpreting a text differently than does its author is misconduct. (8) Ghost writing an article is misconduct. (10) Referencing a paper one has ghost written without acknowledging authorship is misconduct."
1. No. Unless it's a controversial or new fact in a debate. Then one must ground one's hyperbole in fact.
2. No. Unless the reference is spurious. I've seen dissertations bounced because of this; too frequently the writer could never justify an assertion, she just "remembered this book said this" even though her memory was the only proof she could ever find. In her case, she tried it with a book written by one of her committee members. *She* was stupid.
3. No. Unless you claim the partial support is full support. Then it's a lie. Or the person's unable to read.
4. One does not have to detail the contradictions; but the contradictions should be of interpretation, not fact. I could cite this essay and say the writer supports firing Churchill; this would be dishonest. Or stupid. However, it's good practice to engage in dialog, to acknowledge the other view and to try to discredit it. After all, it's not that Churchill's view is automatically right; the better grounded view is right. Churchill's unaware of this--or chooses to ignore it.
5. There are standards of evidence in academia. Oral histories are malleable; they change over time. They are additional evidence only in the light of supporting physical evidence; otherwise they're interesting tales. In Churchill's case, he flips it: the oral histories refute the written documentation, with no additional supporting evidence.
6. One does not need to repent over every erroneous citation; most are never found. But the guilt isn't in the bad citations, it's in affirming that they're accurate when they're not, or in saying the conclusions are able to defy gravity and hang in the air with no discernible support. Telekinesis is novel in academia.
7. One can interpret a text in different ways. One cannot interpret a text to mean the opposite of what the author intended. See my example for (4).
8. Ghostwriting is not misconduct. But typically people don't ghostwrite in their fields.
9. Making use of the canon of ethics so that a reasonable reader can only infer that your avatar is a separate entity from you is, well, abuse. It is misconduct. Or Churchill was schizophrenic, and his other personalities wrote them. Then he's not capable of being responsible.

As for plagiarism, this was extensively dealt with elsewhere. One of the writers was new to the field, and it's a small one. She was afraid. A couple of examples from my field as to why this should be so. My (old, former) advisor fought with a leading light in the field in the '60s, who only died in '89. From the time he graduated until 1990, my advisor was unable to get a job in North America. The guy he fought with put out the word: hire him, and you suffer. Example 2: A professor that was on my diss committee used a work by one of his colleagues at Yale in class; it was a horrible, horrible book, and everybody knew it. The prof had a student, call him Rick, write a review; it got published. Over 20 years later, a couple of books and scores of articles later--more than enough for tenure, with good reviews everywhere--Rick was still in lectureships. Every 3 years he had to get a new job. In '92 the author of the book retired; in '94 the prof retired, resigning from committees and dedicating himself entirely to research. In '94 Rick got a tenure-track job.

The plagiarized writer was plausibly afraid of Churchill. She refused to cooperate with the investigators and bring charges. Matter dropped. Until Churchill lost stature, and the write gained independent stature; when the opportunity arose, the charges could be pursued. It's bad form to argue from silence when silence may result from oppression, real or perceived.

[Buzz Clik]

7. The committee makes it clear.

They were unanimous in their findings, but split over the punishment.

Significantly:

"The Committee observes also that the allegations we were asked to investigate were initiated in the wake of the public outcry concerning some highly controversial essays by Professor Churchill dealing with, among other things, the 9/11 tragedy. While not endorsing either the tone or the contents of those essays, the Committee reaffirms, as the University has already acknowledged, that Professor Churchill’s right to publish his views was protected by both the First and Fourteenth Amendment
guarantees of free speech. Although those essays played no part in our deliberations, the Committee expresses its concern regarding the timing and perhaps the motives for the University's decision to forward charges made in that context. We point out finally that when Professor Churchill was hired as an Associate Professor with tenure in 1991 and promoted to (full) Professor in 1997, the University knew that he did not have a Ph.D. or law degree, as commonly expected for faculty at this institution, and was aware that he was a controversial public intellectual." http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/ChurchillReportSummary.pdf

This was no rubber stamp, kangaroo court.