home

Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U.

David Lane, Ward Churchill's attorney, said tonight that while C.U. and Churchill were able to agree on the amount of money for a buyout, other conditions have stalled the talks. The news article says that word of a plagerism investigation by Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia nine years ago made the C.U. Regents want more time to consider the buyout. Churchill denies the plagerism charge and says it was based upon one footnote in a work he assembled, that the inclusion of the footnote was inadvertant and that he did not take credit for the work.

Local Denver news is reporting the amount agreed upon was between $300,000 and $400,000. Lane says if C.U. doesn't want to settle, fine, Churchill will continue teaching. If he's fired, there will be a lawsuit.

< 10,000 Posts | No Bail for NY Cops Charged With Mafia Hits >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:12:31 PM EST
    The Churchill story just gets better and better, doesn't it? Like the gift the kept on giving...

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 11, 2005 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    The Churchill story just gets better and better, doesn't it? Like the gift that kept on giving...

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#3)
    by bad Jim on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 02:24:22 AM EST
    A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:42:38 AM EST
    Yes, bad Jim, that's a good recap of Churchill's career and public statements.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 07:40:52 AM EST
    the more you learn about Churchill, the worse he sounds. what a whack! Plagerism, fraud, being a wanker... I don't think CU could possibly look any worse!!!

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 07:49:35 AM EST
    A provacative outspoken Professor and a Conservative Male Prostitute, who is an authorized official Whitehouse ringer! Wow I think you guys Gina, deuce, Bad and Horse are out of touch with who the real wackos are.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:47:34 AM EST
    Yeah, Mr. Ed., we all know that White House Ringer is Helen Thomas's job! Actually, I'm in favor of paying off Churchil, but every taxpayer should get the option to check off "$3" on their tax return in exchange for the option to slap him on the top of the head and say "stupid!" -C

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 09:02:13 AM EST
    Cliff. That would be redundant. How about slapping the Regents?

    How much do you suppose Churchill was making at CU? Perhaps Susan Hollis Merrit would have and idea...

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 09:26:55 AM EST
    If you want to take a break from wasting time obsessing over Churchill, you might want to check out Reclaiming the Englightenment by Stephen Bronner, a genuine scholar with something very important to say. Or you could do a lot worse than read America Right or Wrong by Anatol Lieven, another brilliant thoughtful mind that can't get much of a media hearing, given how much time is taken up with Ward C. and other silly buffoons. But never mind. It's much more fun to focus on what the right wants us to think about than actually learn something about who we are.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 09:27:49 AM EST
    I'm sure the students at CU appreciate all you wingnuts doing their thinking for them. And if you think your hard earned tax dollars are being wasted on this guy's salary, then you are even more hyocritical than I ever imagined. Yeah, go ahead and demand your tax money back. It probably comes out to about 1/16 cent per person. You folks are real crime fighters! Woohoo! Cliff, Three dollars per taxpayer? Do you know how much money that is? Can we privatize it so I can manage the fund? So much anger. Do you have a Helen Thomas doll under your bed that you whip out and punch every once in a while?

    ...sory, I guess that should have been 'IS making'...

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    Darwin is a left wing radical and science is a communist plot. I'm sitting here naked so when the rapture comes I will be sure no liberal fags will get any of my stuff.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    Che - No Helen Thomas doll under my bed but thank you very much for a visual that will NOT go away. Bad liver, must punish! -C

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 11:59:38 AM EST
    -C, LOL

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    He's making 6 figures. CU has known about this plagiarism case since 1994. They can't possibly be having second thoughts about it now. They knew about it and gave him a pass on it for ten years--it sounds like a little bit of misguided political face-saving going on here. They just need to retire the guy and get it over with.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 05:58:50 PM EST
    What 'they' ought to do IS GIVE THE INDIANS THE SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS THEY HAVE STOLEN FROM THEM, and start collecting REAL grazing and mining fees from the corporations the gov't is busy subsidizing. Mining and grazing subsidies cost American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars, but Ward Churchill is your pet peeve. That's because you don't mind gov't handouts to corporate backers of your $R slushfund artists with the duffel bags full of free cash, as long as your fatcats get their cut. Your worldview is such a lie. You're not Christians ('False witness,' Gina, who buys into every lie she's told); you sure aren't compassionate (Lakota people die from lack of ambulances and hospitals, while the gov't that spends $300 billion on a fake war can't find the $7 billion they owe). You're fakes, in comparison with whom Ward Churchill is solid gold. He at least TRIES to fight for the dispossessed. You just gnaw your chicken legs and spit.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimcee on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 06:52:59 PM EST
    Paul in LA, You give me a headache with your ananities. Mr ED, I honestly don't care about "Gannongate" and it is rather off-thread. Cliff, You have one funny liver. M. Ditto, Yeah you're right because now it is any port in the storm for CU and their merry Band O'Regents. Anyway, if WC is a theoretical Cherokee why would he write about First-American fishing rights on the Grand Banks? Who knew that the Cherokees were great maritime fisherman. Heck even the Algonquins that lived in Nova Scotia didn't fish off shore they left it to the Portuguese and French for 500 years. WC is certainly a fraud but I guess he the best and brightest of the Left these days otherwise they would just cut bait and...sorry.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peaches on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 07:52:17 PM EST
    Jimcee, First it might be a typo, but it is inanities. Second, Native Americans are right to band together and work for the rights of every NA no matter what their tribal affiliation. Strength in numbers. Third, Mr. Churchill has a point of view and the left defends his right to express it. No one heard of the guy until a couple of months ago. Some on the left might agree with him - many don't. Finally, what concerns free speech advocates on the left the most is the right-wing agenda to remove and/or intimidate individuals in higher education who espouse dissident beliefs.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:02:34 PM EST
    Peaches. You might be right. Conservatives are concerned that taxpayers' money is spent on guys like Whitey Churchill and his type teaching lies in a university setting. Let him lie. The First Amendment protects him. The First does not require he be paid in perpetuity by taxpayers to miseducate their kids. If the taxpayers choose to stop paying him, that's their right. Taxpayers have rights, too. It's in the constitution, someplace.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:38:15 PM EST
    Conservatives are NOT concerned that taxpayers' money is spent on subsidizing mining and grazing fees, so that corporations can bilk BILLIONS out of the Federal budget. Nor do 'conservatives' care less about the SEVEN BILLION owed to first nations for their portion of these miniscule fees. Because, after all, paying debts AIN'T conservative. Look at Clinton! He paid the country's debts, and then some, but no one called him conservative. Drilling ANWR and logging Sequoia National Park is not conservative, either. So, now, what would be 'miseducating the kids'? Telling them that Bush is a hero, or telling them that Bush has lied through his arse for his entire life? Oh, yeah...you already know your answer, and that's because you care BUPKIS for the truth. You don't want to conserve ANYTHING, other than unfair advantage for the few. 'Conservative' now = antiamerican.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 08:54:16 PM EST
    PIL - Catch a clue. The government has nothing. It is the tax payers who pay.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 09:26:17 PM EST
    No one heard of the guy until a couple of months ago. Some on the left might agree with him - many don't.
    Correction--he wasn't a national figure until O'Reilly latched onto him, but he's been one of our local nut cases for 15 years. Just because you never heard of him doesn't mean nobody has.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    I'm just curious: At what point does the left wing give up their support for their newly adopted standard bearer? Plagiarism, artistic copyright fraud, made up heritge, spitting on old ladies....Apparently, being a two bit scam artist is now covered under "Academic Freedom".

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 11:53:15 PM EST
    On a related matter: Professor Churchill is justified, I think, in being concerned about how much the controversy being enflamed by the governor, the state legislature, and other politicians in Colorado is harming his opportunities to be hired in another doctoral research institution. Without a Ph.D., at this point in time, getting such a position could be harder for him than it was when he was first hired by CU Boulder; the supply is still not abundant, but there are many more candidates in ethnic studies and native American/American Indian studies than there used to be. As recent articles suggest, there is still, however, the academic and public lecture circuit, and more books to write. Recently, Prof. Churchill said in an interview that resigning the chairmanship of Ethnic Studies gave him more time to work on his own research and writing. So he may not have resigned only for wholly altruistic reasons, purely to save the Ethnic Studies department from the stress of this controversy. Conversely, I believe that research and writing have an important component of altruism, and that they can be an extension of "teaching" (in classrooms) and/or political activism. That seems to be Prof. Churchill's perspective on his work. That perspective itself appears to be part of the overall controversy.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 12, 2005 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    In response to a question posed earlier (by "sarcastic unnamed one") about how much Professor Ward Churchill makes in salary at the University of Colorado at Boulder: Such information is published in this article published in the Washington Post on 4 Feb. 2005. (That was soon after the initial controversy began as a result of the cancellation of his invitation to participate in a panel discussion at Hamilton College due to the "little Eichmanns" comparison.) That article reports Prof. Churchill's salary as currently $94,000 [not inc. benefits (which are considerable at a doctoral research institution like CU)]. His current salary reflects a reduction from $115,000 according to that report ($107,000 as reported in some blogs). [He no longer makes "6 figures" without benefits included, but earns that much with benefits included.] The reduction in his annual salary occurred when he resigned his administrative chairmanship of the Ethnic Studies program; probably pro-rated annually as well, as the resignation occurred over halfway through the academic fiscal year. (Such additional administrative appointments often include supplemental annual stipends, though his additional income seems quite generous. Such salaries and stipends are called "competitive" in academia.) Given his current academic salary, $300,000-500,000 represents a potentially-attractive "early retirement" buy-out, depending on continuing benefits (health, pension contributions, insurance, etc.) and other terms. It's about three to five more years of salary, but if nothing more goes into his retirement fund, that represents a loss of income for him. If he can make up the difference in lecture fees, that might not hurt him financially.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:04:22 AM EST
    It is occultism, this ant turd examining attack on Ward Churchill, in the face of dire warcrimes against populations across the globe on this nation's conscience. The immorality of those actions is what is important, and not whether you find it hard to swallow a stick-in-your-throat activist who is trying to draw this country into a debate about morality, rather than an ersatz debate about religion, led and demanded by obviously irrelgious and hateful people. You are immoral if you supported the illegal Iraq invasion. Ward Churchill is among the spared from that guilt. And a lot of his students are getting a perspective on the truth, otherwise known as facts in evidence, to assess their worldview. You just can't get a decent worldview from textbooks of History Channel™ propaganda, and government (legal or not) lies. A college professor is not a high school teacher. What kind of education have you had, that you don't know that?

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:46:18 AM EST
    Re: the charges of plagiarism against Professor Ward Churchill being made in blogs and various online publications. Any college professor who teaches and practices intellectual and academic honesty will confirm that rumors of plagiarism and charges of plagiarism must be investigated extremely thoroughly. That takes time. One must hunt down sources, interview the writer in question, give him or her the benefit of every doubt, and confirm "beyond a reasonable doubt" that intentional plagiarism has actually occurred (unintentional plagiarism is a different issue). As a respected faculty member at CU Boulder whose peer reviews have been generally favorable (according to reports in the news), Prof. Ward Churchill still has academic due process on his side. [For him firing for plagiarism would be a punishment commensurate with dismissal for a student plagiarist; it would have to be proved that the plagiarism was intentional and part of a pervasive pattern of dishonesty in his work. I don't know that that is the case.] Just as a student accused of plagiarism is entitled to fair academic hearings built into the university or college academic standards process, so a professor is entitled to such hearings, as written into the Colorado State Board of Regents contractual obligations (on the CU website; I linked to the procedures in earlier threads on the Churchill controversy here). In response to some of the charges of plagiarism mentioned in the news (inc. the one by the Lamar U Assistant Prof., about which I posted some time ago in another thread), Prof. Churchill has offered various explanations, such as he has made unintentional errors; maybe he was "mistaken." Whether the pattern of these errors or mistakes of judgments is pervasive in the record of his publications or not is the business of those doing the reviews and investigations of his work. It is not the business of non-expert commenters on blogs, without any concrete knowledge of all that is needed in such investigations, to decide that he is, without a doubt, a plagiarist. To assert that he is an intentional plagiarist (without full investigative evidence) is merely to engage in unfounded name-calling ("plagiarist"). That is despicable in my book. (And, from some povs, it is as bad in academia as calling people in the WTC twin towers "little Eichmanns" is in post 9/11 America. Both are offensive. ("Two wrongs don't make a right.") If Prof. Churchill and the CU Regents do not reach an amicable "buy out" or other kind of settlement, his case still has to go through that process. It is time consuming. The reason for the buy out or settlement would seem to be to reduce the time that this case is unresolved, saving both sides costs of attorneys' fees and much personal, professional, and institutional angst. From Prof. Ward Churchill's own perspective, at this point there are probably both pros and cons to keeping his job at CU. He didn't look too happy about anything on Bill Mahr's show the other night. And in the hallway confronting the tv reporters the other day, he looked as if his tolerance of this controversy had reached the breaking point (until he cooled down and returned to speak again with them). So that might in part explain his being willing to settle or be "bought out" too. He isn't that far away from an early retirement age, and maybe he has other things that he would rather do with his life than be a "Sitting Bull" target for right-wingers angry at CU Boulder for being his place of employment.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:46:43 AM EST
    soon we will be asking the government to free Churchill, what a setup job for bush, let churchill talk and let bush and business talk, hey is this a freedom loving nation or what? oh yes hope the boots of freedom don't walk on his face, but that is what happens when people like bush get power, and political propaganda eat's into ideas; we are all encircled by fools, long live the bill of rights, and remember waco.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:13:59 AM EST
    Susan writes - "Professor Churchill is justified, I think, in being concerned about how much the controversy being enflamed..." How about, "If you can't stand the stigmatize, then don't plagiarize..." "If you aint no Saint, then don't do no phony paint..." et al - I am thinking of changing my moniker to P.P.J. the Notorious K.M.A. White Boy Rapper... (Credit to Elmore Leonard for the Notorious K.M.A. from "Be Cool.") BTW - Susan, how long will you folks defend this guy? You never had the Right, and now you have lost the Middle. Michael D - well, O'Reilly pulled the national trigger, but I think he was outed to O'Reilly because of an inter-Left wing war at Hamilton College, ignited when some wanted to hire a former indicted member of the Weatherman organization. Who said that university collegial wars are so nasty because the stakes are so small?

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 07:45:17 AM EST
    SHM, To assert that he is an intentional plagiarist (without full investigative evidence) is merely to engage in unfounded name-calling ("plagiarist"). Absolutely. But wingnuts aren't the least bit interested in due process. It just might reveal the truth.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:54:57 PM EST
    Jim: "BTW - Susan, how long will you folks defend this guy? You never had the Right, and now you have lost the Middle." According to the cowards who just stole another election. Give us our right to recountable votes back, and we'll see who loses the middle in a heartbeat: Bushliar and his wreck the economy, wreck the environment, wreck our military policies. You wingers are so far out of the mainstream you have to lie incessantly to get anywhere. If the press leveled with the nation, Bush would be impeached by REPUBLICAN demand, as he should (and they should). The term 'conservative' now means its antithesis. Who cares, it's on a credit card for our children to pay off, and Bush will be dead, so don't ask him to care. State-sponsored murder, under Bush, is a growth industry. And that has pissed off plenty of Republicans and Dems in the Middle. But it is the rape of the wild lands and the decline in the infrastructure and environmental health of the cities that is going to make you guys the hated pariahs you've always wanted to be. Congratulations!

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    Che - It is my understanding that legal counsel of the Nova Scotia college has determined, in their mind, that Churchill's article was plagiarized. Me? I'm all for a trial.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    PPJ. Don't bother. In this case, goalposts will be moved faster than a cockroach when you turn the lights on. Hm. Some kind of congruence here. Anyway, Whitey Churchill got where he was at CU by virtue of a lefty determination to torque the curriculum and atmosphere at the school, and bleep the so-called "qualifications". Problem is, he's unlikely to be the only one. Any kind of due process is going to embarrass the admin big time, not to mention haul other cases out from under their respective rocks. Also, Prof. Mitchell's case may be brought into more light than currently and then we'll see who's interested in due process. Hmm?

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    Here's an update: "Churchill Denies Sole Authorship." Please read the whole news report before commenting. It helps to understand the context of the latest "charges." Having read it carefully, I would still argue that it is not clear that Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia has "proved" [intentional] "plagiarism." What it appears has happened is a case of sloppy scholarship, which occurred in Churchill's and others' preparation of a collectively-authored essay, published in an edition edited by Churchill's former wife. In that respect, in my view, she, as the volume's editor, had ultimate responsibility for checking the accuracy of all the sole and collaboratively-authored essays published in that volume. [The news report retrospectively describes some of the conflict that they had relating to this volume.] What appears to have happened in this situation is that a number of people made a series of errors leading to the erroneous citations/misrepresentations in the essay in question that none of them caught prior to publication. A conventional form of rectifying such errors when their discovery occurs long after first publication is the insertion of an "errata" sheet correcting the errors in subsequent printings of the volume (these days this can be done online as well). Professor Churchill's own colleagues who vetted him for promotion and tenure at CU Boulder and the outside readers whom they may have commissioned to review his work also bear "ultimate responsibility" for not seeing these problems at the time they did their (multiple) reviews. They were the "ultimate" peer review committee that reviewed his publications up to this point. Given the nature of current academic scholarship, in which I see errors of attribution and citation of prior scholarhsip occurring with some frequency and which go uncorrected publicly even when they are pointed out privately, I don't think that Ward Churchill is the only one in academia to have these kinds of "chickens" to "come home to roost." Academic integrity in scholarship is at times severely challenged. Unfortunately, as in the case of "the Ward Churchill controversy," academic integrity is all-too-frequently at the mercy of academic and other kinds of politics. Ironically, there are a variety of ways in which the "chickens are coming home to roost" for Ward Churchill and his colleagues, many of which Churchill himself shares absolutely no "responsibility," some of which he does (such as writing and disseminating his essay igniting this controversy in the first place). (That, by the way, is still within his rights as an American citizen to have written. He just has to live with the "fall out.") At this point, I would observe that it is virtually impossible to separate the political forces in retaliating against him from the academic "rationale" marshalled against him. So, once again, I urge extreme caution against irresponsible pre-judgments of the "case of Ward Churchill."

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    MSNBC online features the earlier RMN report of the alleged 1991-92 plagiarism in which Dalhousie University claimed in 1997 that Ward Churchill was involved, also written by Laura Frank: "Prof accused of plagiarism: Nova Scotia school sends CU a report on Churchill essay." The more recent article cited in my previous comment updates that earlier report. People need to take both (and subsequent) reports into account. Obviously, that part of this "controversy" is still "under investigation" by CU Boulder (and will be so unless/until some out-of-court buy out or settlement is reached) by all parties concerned. Meanwhile, the "Ward Churchill controversy" seems to be becoming more of an academic "morass."

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    I do not have access to the Cohen and Churchill essays in question to compare them myself. Just in googling about, I have, however, found the following encyclopedia article on "Fishing and Hunting Rights" published by Houghton Mifflin's College division (online) and written by a different contributor (neither Cohen nor Churchill):
    Alvin J. Ziontz is a Seattle lawyer whose firm has specialized in the practice of Indian law. He is the author of numerous articles on Indian law topics. He has also been a visiting professor of law at the University of Iowa and at Durham University in England.
    Ziontz also cites Cohen as among the sources of content for this article. If one clicks on "Contributors" to this online version of this 1996 encyclopedia volume, one will find that Ward Churchill is among them. The dates of the various credits in his entry suggest that this publication went to press sometime in or just before 1996. (Before 1997, when Cohen first made her charges of alleged plagiarism vs. Churchill.) [Obviously, the "sphere" of specialists in this field is relatively small; certainly, it's way smaller than the "blogosphere" hosting all this "controversy."] It would be interesting, if anyone has the time, to compare this encyclopedia entry by Ziontz, also citing Cohen, with Cohen's essay that she claims Churchill (or his collaborative) later allegedly plagiarized. In academic writing in book collections of essays, the documentation formats are expected (by academic press readers and their academic audiences) to be more formal than one finds in the encyclopedia articles and in the journalistic press. Academic documentation practices and protocols in advanced-level research (of the kind that Ward Churchill would be presumed to be doing for essays being published in such book collections) requires accurate and adequate use of quotation marks to distinguish the borrowing of words and phrases from part paraphrase and inclusion of the page numbers from sources of material being thus cited. One caveat, however, is that some (even academic) presses and trade publishers differ in their "in-house" documentation requirements. The more the work is thought to be geared to a general and non-academic audience, the more possible that one may find "blanket" footnotes/endnotes or even no such running documentation and simply a very long paragraph listing sources upon which a writer drew, or some kind of overall bibliography (list of works consulted and/orcited). Therefore, one really needs to know more about the nature of the book that Churchill's ex-wife edited in which Churchill was the "lead" contributor of that collective group of authors and also how the later essay compares in form, content, and context to the essay that Cohen published in the previous volume that he edited. There are many publications that Churchill presents in online formats that suggest that he moves in and out of "academic" and "popular" writing. The "chickens coming home to roost" essay is a case in point. If in its first publication/distribution (as he did only later), he had documented (and explained his rationale for) his reference to "little Eichmanns" as an allusion to Hannah Arendt's work on "the banality of evil," published that essay in some very obscure academic journal, and also not re-published it in a book and circulated both the essay and information about the book publication so widely on the internet, then perhaps there would be no "Ward Churchill controversy" in the MSM and the blogosphere (or vice versa) at all. Of course, then too, as a political activist, his views would not be widely publicized and less subject to discussion and debate. One can't have it both ways at once. Either one and one's views are well-publicized and thus well-known ["notorious," "infamous," or "celebrated," as the case may be], or they are not (and far fewer people know who one is and what one's views are).

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    [An amusing (I think) thought has come to mind:] Hmmn--Of course, there is always the "blogosphere." Why doesn't Ward Churchill just start blogging? That way there needs to be no external publisher or editor to whom he has to answer; he just has to stay within his ISP's Terms of Service/Terms of Use. (Of course, in conventionally academic reviews of scholarship, one doesn't get much if any "academic credit" for blogging, at least not yet! As people are already writing dissertations on blogs in Rhetoric sections of English depts. [e.g. Culture Cat, see TL's thread on feminist and female blogging], maybe that will change!) If he just would just blog, he could be just like so many millions of others (who apparently never saw a citation or read or honored a copyright notice in their lives), "allegedly plagiarizing" and "infringing copyrights beyond fair use doctrine" all over the place. That seems to be "democracy" these days. Both from inside and outside the "ivory towers." Apparently, different rules/laws apply in the blogosphere than in academia per se! Different strokes for different folks. From the perspective of this academic: I find it so ironic and hypocritical to see rightwingers who often don't cite (or interpret) their own sources honestly complaining with vociferous outrage about "Churchill's [alleged] plagiarism." Time for a bit of mirror-looking, eh? ;)

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    For those interested in pursuing this aspect of the "Ward Churchill controversy" by actually attempting to compare the works in question: [Part One] The book including the essay under investigation for charges of alleged plagiarism appears to be:
    The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance. Race and Resistance ser. Ed. M. Annette Jaimes. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1992.
    It consists of 447 pages, maps, bibliographical references. Subjects as categorized are "Indians of North America--Government relations--1934-Indians of North America--Legal sta[t]us, laws, etc." It is available in academic libraries (e.g., Cornell U, from whose online catalog that information derives) and, as linked above, from Amazon.com. [The full (copyrighted) table of contents, excerpt from Jaimes, and index are accessible at that Amazon.com link.] The collaboratively-authored essay by the "collective" is listed as "Chapter VII: "In Usual and Accustomed Places: COntemporary American Indian Fishing Rights Struggles" page 217f.; the next page of the table of contents lists another essay, Chapter VIII: "Native North America: The Political Economy of Radioactive Colonialism," co-authored by Ward Churchill and Winona LaDuke, one of his frequent collaborators (241f.). "About the Contributors" (text not available at Amazon.com) begins on page 445; that would appear to be where Ward Churchill identifies himself as the primary author of the INP "collective" essay; it could also be mentioned by Jaimes in an introduction to the volume.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    [Part Two:] In Laura Frank's RMN report of 14 Mar. 2205, Frank quotes Jaimes ("Churchill's ex-wife") as saying "in an interview" that Jaimes "recalls that Churchill worked on the fishing rights essay and 'from what I recall he had a preliminary or pilot paper he worked off of.' [But] [s]he said she could not recall the paper's source." The implication is that "the paper's source" may have been or was the essay by Fay G. Cohen that Cohen withdrew from Jaimes's collection due to her discomfort with "the way he [Churchill] had edited her original essay [for a 1991 book of essays on Native North America, published in Copenhagen, Denmark]." The subject of that essay by Fay G. Cohen is "Indian treaty fishing rights in the Northwest and Wisconsin." I do not have access to that particular essay. Since Cohen's essay in Churchill's 1991 collection published in Copenhagen was not reprinted in an American publication, due to her decision not to permit Churchill to reprint it, it is harder to find a copy of it (for purposes of comparison) in academic libraries or bookstores in the U.S. That kind of comparison (collation) is what the "investigation" taking place at CU Boulder is in the course of making. It is fairly painstaking and very time-consuming work, which reportedly has delayed the Colorado Board of Regents from finalizing its earlier offer of a "buy out"/settlement agreement to Churchill. If CU Boulder's review leads it to find "cause" for firing him, it may still do so, though then (given Churchill's prior public statements) the fight will most likely become a protracted court battle, which the state of Colorado, the University of Colorado system, and Ward Churchill himself all apparently wish to avoid. As President Hoffman's recent resignation (effective at the end of the current academic fiscal year) suggests, CU Boulder is trying to avoid even more negative press and public harm to its reputation itself, as Professor Churchill is trying to avoid to his. This whole mess seems to be part of a larger academic "morass" in which that institution now finds itself.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    The book of essays edited by Ward Churchill, containing Fay G. Cohen's essay, published in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1991 is
    Critical Issues in Native North America - Volume II, by Ward Churchill (ed.), 1991, IWGIA Document 68 - Out of Print!
    as listed on the web site of its original publisher, the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Though listed as "out of print" on the IWGIA web site, it is included in many (online) bibliographies of native American and related ethnic studies and should be available in academic libraries and some online bookstores, should anyone want to look for it.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 03:11:14 PM EST
    Here's the table of contents for Churchill's 1991 book, listing last the title of Fay G. Cohen's essay in it, "Implementing Indian Treaty fishing rights: conflict and cooperation." Volume II may be out of print, but it is available in libraries and possibly bookstores like Powells or others specializing in finding out-of-print books. That's one of the sources of the "excerpts" that Duke U's Tim Dodd was comparing with the 1992 essay supposedly collaboratively-authored by the collective called Institute for Natural Progress (INP) apparently "headed" by Churchill.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    Here's the table of contents for Churchill's 1991 book, listing last the title of Fay G. Cohen's essay in it, "Implementing Indian Treaty fishing rights: conflict and cooperation." Volume II may be out of print, but it is available in libraries and possibly bookstores like Powells or others specializing in finding out-of-print books. That's one of the sources of the "excerpts" that Duke U's Tim Dodd was comparing with the 1992 essay (purportedy-collaboratively-authored) by the collective called Institute for Natural Progress (INP), of which Churchill was apparently the "lead" author.

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 02:04:11 PM EST
    [I've been continuing to follow aspects of "the Ward Churchill controversy," in the news again today. The Denver Post has provided some thorough past coverage, accessible also in this current AP report posted here and headlined "Churchill denies plagiarism or threatening physical harm."] Earlier articles linked in the Denver Post site's righthand menu provide some of the comparisons between Fay G. Cohen's essay published in Churchill's 1991 collection of edited essays and the essay attributed to the Institute for Natural Progress (INP), which Churchill claims to have simply "assembled" and not to have written solely, but those assertions appear debatable to me. [For an earlier RMN report, he wouldn't identify who else made up the INP, though online sources say it was his frequent collaborator, Winona LaDuke (later running mate of Ralph Nader).] As I've worked through some of this material elsewhere in a much-longer format, I'll try to include a brief précis of my comments below (if I may).

    Re: Talks Collapse Between Churchill and C.U. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    (1) The "comparative" passages in the previously-cited Denver Post report come from an extensive endnote in a 1999 article by U of New Mexico law professor John P. LaVelle . (a) The material from Churchill's and the "INP's" essays placed in boxes for purposes of "comparison" in the Denver Post article comes from note 8 of LaVelle's article, a note which is a few pages long! That article is available on his web site in a downloadable pdf format. (b) Another article accessible there, a 1996 book review of Churchill's "Indians Are Us?" is also an extremely-pejorative evaluation of Churchill's scholarship and his academic integrity. (2) LaVelle's arguments about Churchill's purported lack of academic integrity are quite damning. [I have a lot of qualifications to make about them, but there is not room to post them here.] (3) I would still stress that it takes specialists in Churchill's fields to evaluate the details of his arguments astutely and fairly. From my own perspective as an academic specialist not in those fields, but one who "professes" academic integrity to university and college students, I can say that the evidence does not look good for Churchill (or for whoever actually wrote the essays that LaVelle discusses, which it appears from preliminary inquiry is at least "primarily" Churchill). If he is credited as the "primary author" in the volume's Contributors notes (as Tim Dodd of Duke U's Center for Academic Integrity has already stated), he also holds "primary" responsibility for the form and content of that 1992 essay. (4) Churchill's repeated attempts to deflect ownership of such responsibility (in this case and otherwise) is quite disingenuous (dishonest) it seems to me. But, then again, I did not and am not sitting on the "peer review" committees assessing the academic quality and integrity of his body of work over the full span of his career. (5) As I've been pointing out all along, however, the (questionable if legal] retrospective post-tenure review "verdict" (in the academic tenure hearings portion of this controversy) is still up to Churchill's CU Boulder colleagues. Then, if there is to be no "buy out" or settlement" out of court, as he and his lawyer threat, a follow-up law suit may ensue. Though Churchill claims that he will "win" (on the bases of academic freedom and First Amendment issues, it appears) at this point, it is hard to say. Such suits and follow-up appeals of court verdicts relating to such academic matters sometimes take several years. Having pointed all this out, I still feel one must keep an "open mind." Such cases should not be "tried" in the press, the blogosphere included. I provide the above information for the purposes of others who may want to read the articles in question themselves and to draw their own conclusions. But I still emphasize that we are neither Churchill's judge nor his jury. This is just the "court of public opinion," which has no "jurisdiction" in this matter.