JohnRich 4 #1 June 26, 2006 News:BOULDER, Colo. - The University of Colorado announced Monday that it will dismiss controversial professor Ward Churchill. "Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado Boulder," CU Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano said Monday afternoon. Last month, an investigative subcommittee concluded that Churchill repeatedly fabricated his research, plagiarized others' work and strayed from the "bedrock principles of scholarship." Churchill, who ignited a firestorm by calling some of the World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns" in an essay he wrote after Sept. 11, 2001, has vowed to sue the school if he was fired. Source: The Denver Channel He's also been shown not to be an Indian as he claims, not to have been in the Army Airborne as he claims, and to copy the art paintings of others and claim them as his own original ideas. This guy is a total fraud, and it's about time he's finally paying a price for his lies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #2 June 26, 2006 Why would anyone think he should stay? Just for his anti-Bush veiw?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #3 June 26, 2006 Good. I hope nowhere else hires him as a professor. Not only is he a fraud, he is arrogant to the point of stupidity by drawing attention to himself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #4 June 27, 2006 Has wardchurchill been nominated to the wall of shame yet? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #5 June 27, 2006 QuoteWhy would anyone think he should stay? Just for his anti-Bush veiw? I'm sure that's true. I'm also sure it's a very nutty and tiny and vocal group. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #6 June 27, 2006 > He's also been shown not to be an Indian as he claims, not to have been in the Army Airborne as he claims, and to copy the art paintings of others and claim them as his own original ideas. The New York Times will be interviewing him in short order for a news reporter position to fill in the gaps and round out their staff with nothing but the best and brightest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #7 June 27, 2006 Quote Good. I hope nowhere else hires him as a professor. Not only is he a fraud, he is arrogant to the point of stupidity by drawing attention to himself. I'm glad all this attention brought the real issue forward. I read the paper he wrote that started the whole thing and I totally support his right to free speech. I also remember thinking: this guy is out there, WAY out there. Turns out he was not even qualified for his position or tenure in the first place. CU just wanted to have a respected (at the time) Native American on staff, so they circumvented their tenure procedures. Hopefully, they will learn their lesson and make sure their procedures are followed and hire and retain qualified and quality professors. Moral of the story: Sometimes the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease. It gets pulled the fuck off and thrown in the dumpster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 June 27, 2006 Four people have voted for "Let him stay!" One of you please explain why. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #9 June 27, 2006 QuoteFour people have voted for "Let him stay!" One of you please explain why. I'd be willing to bet they think he's being fired (recommended for termination) because of the article he wrote, which isn't the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #10 June 27, 2006 Last I heard that here in Amerika.. at least for a little while longer we have this little document called the Constitution..... you know.. the one with all those silly amendments.. of which you constantly moan and grown about the Article the fourth.. aka the 2nd amendment. I know the others are so pesky to you but until due process in a court of law...... the guy can not be convicted in the court of the right wing attack dogs. [Bill of Rights] The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. Article the first [Not Ratified] After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Article the second [Amendment XXVII - Ratified 1992] No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Article the fourth [Amendment II][4] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Article the fifth [Amendment III] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Article the sixth [Amendment IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Article the seventh [Amendment V] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Article the eighth [Amendment VI] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Article the ninth [Amendment VII] In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Article the tenth [Amendment VIII] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Article the eleventh [Amendment IX] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article the twelfth [Amendment X] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #11 June 27, 2006 Quotethe guy can not be convicted in the court of the right wing attack dogs. Hardly, prehaps in you missed this QuoteLast month, an investigative subcommittee concluded that Churchill repeatedly fabricated his research, plagiarized others' work and strayed from the "bedrock principles of scholarship." and this...... QuoteIn a Thursday afternoon press conference, University of Colorado Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano said that Churchill's essay is protected by free speech but allegations that he plagiarized others' works and fabricated his American Indian ancestory to get a job requires further investigation. "In our review, we have found that the content and rhetoric of Professor Churchill's writings -- no matter how repugnant I find them -- are protected by the First Amendment. While there are limits to the protections afforded by the Constitution, our review has determined that those limits have not been exceeded in Professor Churchill's case," DiStefano said. "Allegations of research misconduct have also been made, including plagiarism, fabrication and misuse of others' work. As a university, we are obliged to fully investigate such allegations regardless of when or how they emerge. At the level of preliminary review just concluded, our responsibility was to determine whether these allegations of research misconduct are frivolous or not ... In the course of this review we have determined that the allegations regarding research misconduct warrant referral to the standing committee, " DiStefano said. "In regard to the allegation of misrepresentation of ethnicity, to gain credibility and an audience for scholarship, we believe such misrepresentation may constitute research misconduct and failure to meet standards of professional integrity. If he's your poster boy for truth, you can have him. I am sure he can find a job with the NY Times or the BBC. __________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #12 June 27, 2006 As long as he was given due process according to the rules of U of Colorado (and I am sure he was, given the high profile of the case), he's dead meat in academia. Faculty have a lot of latitude to publish what they like without interference from the university administration, but plagiarism, fraud, and using false credentials are not included. This would be considered gross misconduct, and is grounds for revocation of tenure anywhere. My guess is he'll write a book and do the talk show circuit. No standards needed there.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davedlg 0 #13 June 27, 2006 At the beginning of this whole saga when he was just under fire for writing contriversial things, I was adamently against firing him...I firmly believe that a professer should be allowed to say just about anything...that is the whole point of the tenure system. However, given what we know now, he is an embarssment to the community at large and should have resigned long ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #14 June 27, 2006 QuoteAt the beginning of this whole saga when he was just under fire for writing contriversial things, I was adamently against firing him...I firmly believe that a professer should be allowed to say just about anything...that is the whole point of the tenure system. However, given what we know now, he is an embarssment to the community at large and should have resigned long ago. Agreed. Academic freedom should be vigorously protected. But that aside, this looks like a case of resume/credentials fraud and plagiarism. That amounts to an attack on academia's very stock in trade. As long as he's given the same institutional due process any other professor at that school is given, it (the fraud) shouldn't be tolerated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #15 June 28, 2006 QuoteLast I heard that here in Amerika.. at least for a little while longer we have this little document called the Constitution... It was unnecessary to post the entire Bill of Rights. Now, do you have some point you wished to make with that? If so, make it. Because there didn't appear to be any the first time around. Did you vote "Let him stay"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #16 June 28, 2006 QuoteIt was unnecessary to post the entire Bill of Rights. Now, do you have some point you wished to make with that? If so, make it. Because there didn't appear to be any the first time around. I'll second that. What does the constitution have to do with firing a plagiarising academic fraudster?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 June 28, 2006 QuoteI'll second that. What does the constitution have to do with firing a plagiarising academic fraudster? If it is PROVEN that he did in fact engage in fraud .. remove him... BUT.. in this political climate I find it interesting that even though I think he is a whack job.. the Right revels in any attempt to silence more of the things they do not want to hear. Personally I think people like him and Ann Coulter should be locked in a room and let them SHRILL each other to death. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #18 June 28, 2006 QuotePersonally I think people like him and Ann Coulter should be locked in a room and let them SHRILL each other to death. More likely they'll high five each other and laugh about what a good gig they've got stoking the passions of their respective followers.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #19 June 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'll second that. What does the constitution have to do with firing a plagiarising academic fraudster? If it is PROVEN that he did in fact engage in fraud .. remove him... BUT.. in this political climate I find it interesting that even though I think he is a whack job.. the Right revels in any attempt to silence more of the things they do not want to hear. Personally I think people like him and Ann Coulter should be locked in a room and let them SHRILL each other to death. From an insider - you will have to trust that I know something about the way universities operate; he has undoubtedly had a due process hearing with a disciplinary committee of his facuty's senate or other governing body. This is a committee of his peers, NOT the university administration. He will have had an opportunity to present evidence on his behalf, and have witnesses on his behalf. There is NO WAY the university administration could fire him without a recommendation from such a committee. I have been a department chairman, a dean, chairman of our faculty senate and chairman of our promotion and tenure committee, and this is the way it's done at my school and everywhere else. Such processes are called "shared governance" and are REQUIRED of all accredited colleges and universities in the USA. Believe me, he has had his due process. The guy is a charlatan. Don't waste your time on his behalf.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #20 June 28, 2006 QuoteIf it is PROVEN that he did in fact engage in fraud .. Um yea . . . nice backpedal there. BWAAAA HA HA HA You support this turd? BWAAAA HA HA HA --- I'm tellin' ya . . . I'd PAY to hang around here and read this shit. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #21 June 28, 2006 QuoteI'm tellin' ya . . . I'd PAY to hang around here and read this shit. Pssst.. there is a red star by your name....... you ARE paying.... By the way.. I support his RIGHT to say what the fuck he wants.. unlike you guys on the far right who seek to stifle free speech... you only support crap that supports your narrow view of the world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #22 June 28, 2006 QuotePssst.. there is a red star by your name....... you ARE paying.... . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #23 June 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm tellin' ya . . . I'd PAY to hang around here and read this shit. Pssst.. there is a red star by your name....... you ARE paying.... By the way.. I support his RIGHT to say what the fuck he wants.. unlike you guys on the far right who seek to stifle free speech... you only support crap that supports your narrow view of the world. I support his right to make as big an ass of himself as he wants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #24 June 28, 2006 Spin it all you want. What more proof you need? He claimed to be american indian, he's not. And Last month, an investigative subcommittee concluded that Churchill repeatedly fabricated his research, plagiarized others' work and strayed from the "bedrock principles of scholarship." He got his day in court, get over it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #25 June 28, 2006 QuoteBy the way.. I support his RIGHT to say what the fuck he wants.. Me too, but his hate-speech will no longer be funded by the public. Sweet. See ya later, Big Chief Fuckface . . . Quoteunlike you guys on the far right who seek to stifle free speech... ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz........... . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
