One of the more interesting subplots of the Ward Churchill fiasco involves academic freedom. While some people are focused on buying out the man who makes Noam Chomsky and Peter Singer appear lucid, others are expressing fears that the University of Colorado's (CU) review and actions against Churchill will curtail their recruiting of top drawer scholars.
Several academics have expressed fears that CU's actions will damage the university's credibility. Said Duke professor Orin Starn, "It sends the signal to potential hires that their right to freedom of expression may not be protected at CU." CU's Carl Wieman claimed it smacked of "requiring faculty to limit their views and how they express them."
Not everyone commenting took such a drastic stance. While voicing concerns, Larry Estrada, president of the National Association for Ethnic Studies, noted the investigation "will have implications for campuses across the country in terms of how academic freedom is upheld." In this, Estrada is correct.
CU has become the newest microcosm in the academic freedom debate, more specifically, how it is nurtured and protected. If CU is serious about ensuring academic freedom on their campus, the Ward Churchill must go.
Churchill should be canned, not because he holds extreme views, but rather, he should be canned because he lied to his employer and gave them an institutional black eye through his actions and works.
Churchill's position was based upon one predication: his "heritage." It got him the job and a quick promotion to Ethnic Studies department chair as he did not have the requisite degrees to rely upon. The problem for Churchill is that he can't validate his singular qualification. Despite his claims, Churchill has never proved he is of Native American descendant and subsequent genealogical inquiries by the Rocky Mountain News produced nothing. Most damaging was a biting repudiation by the American Indian Movement, which declared him "fraudulent."
Churchill's frauds don't stop at the bloodline's edge; they also flow out of his pen as he has published works containing falsified information. Among the evidence is a paper saying U.S. soldiers gave Indians disease-riddled blankets and another making other false claims about provisions in the General Allotment Act. Lamar University's Thomas Brown investigated the former and declared it "fabricated almost entirely from scratch." Native American scholar John Lavelle affirmed the same for the latter.
Beyond falsifying his research, several professors have accused and documented that Churchill is guilty of plagiarism. Churchill has been tagged for borrowing from essays by several scholars (including from his ex-wife) and even cited for plagiarizing a painting. Says UMass's Gunther Levy, "He just makes things up."
But beyond Churchill's scholarship lies another reason: Freedom of speech does not grant him blanket immunity from the consequences of his comments. Freedom of expression does not prevent an employer for firing you for your statements. Radio host Mike Rosen said it best, noting that "Liberty is not license." While Churchill is attempting to hide behind the First Amendment, his embrace and flouting of it has brought to where he is at now. Churchill has opened himself and CU to potential slander, libel and defamation of character lawsuits. This is cause enough for him to be fired; speech has consequences.
Eason Jordan can testify to that being the case; he resigned from CNN (most likely under pressure) due to his outrageous claims that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were targeting journalists. Ben Wright didn't get that luxury. The CBS golf announcer got whacked after saying lady golfers would never be as good as the males because, um, parts got in the way.
Yet, to some, Churchill's ouster would be viewed as heavy-handed as harmful to academic freedom as it appears to punish him for his views. However, the focus has been wrongly placed on his expression instead of his actions. Churchill lied to his employer and then used it to gain monetary and professional benefit at the taxpayer's expense. In the course of that he published multiple fraudulent works under the guise of scholarship. If this is an individual worth keeping under the banner of academic freedom, then the banner must be in tatters.
Notes CU Law professor Paul Campos, "Tenure and academic freedom are hard to defend if they don't provide us who benefit from them with the minimal degree of courage necessary to say ... enough is enough." In fact, they are impossible to defend if people like Churchill are allowed to perpetuate within in the system and ruin it for the others. Academic freedom must be maintained by vigilantly rejecting those who denigrate scholarship with sophistry. Academic freedom cannot breathe when the oxygen is being sucked out by an abuser.
CU can reaffirm commitment to academic excellence if they fire Churchill outright, making the statement that they value scholars, not shams. Any amount of money spent fighting a threatened discrimination suit by Churchill would be better spent than giving him money (in effect, bribing him) to leave.
Write to Jeff at:
mannedarena@yahoo.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
