www.onepalestine.org/resources/Ward_Churchill.html
Support Ward Churchill The following is an update from Natsu Saito on the attack against Ward Churchill and academic freedom at University of Colorado. Natsu Saito is a colleague of Professor Churchill's who also teaches in the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of Colorado.
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: Ward Churchill Update Update on University of Colorado 's Investigation of Ward Churchill As you know, for the past seven months Ward Churchill has been under intense political attack. Having been forced to acknowledge that all of Ward's "controversial" statements were protected by the First Amendment, the University of Colorado (CU) has attempted to legitimize its ongoing and retaliatory investigation by converting it into an intense scrutiny of the "academic integrity" of his work. Ward has consistently complied with University policies on confidentiality. Nonetheless, in direct violation of its own rules, the University continues to try his case in the media. Hence, this update on recent developments: 1 In early June the Rocky Mountain News (RMN) ran a 5-part feature series blatantly attempting to influence the inquiry subcommittee, providing the RMN's "conclusions" on each allegation and attempting to add new charges to the inquiry. University spokesperson Pauline Hale stated publicly that charges made only in the news media are not a legitimate basis for inquiry, but this was immediately contradicted by Interim Chancellor Philip DiStefano, who sent 59 pages of articles downloaded off the RMN website to the subcommittee. In turn, the subcommittee simply forwarded the articles to Ward with instructions to answer "any new allegations." This time they consisted of three claimed inaccuracies in Ward's biographical portrayal of his late wife, allegations which had already been rejected by the University but were subsequently highlighted by the RMN 3 On August 19 the inquiry subcommittee submitted its report, dismissing some allegations against Ward and sending others to the full Standing Committee for investigation. Dismissed outright were the claim that Ward had misrepresented his American Indian identity and the charges of copyright violations. The remaining allegations were substantially narrowed, with some subparts being dropped. Although the forwarding of these charges had been announced by the University, when asked about this development, spokesperson Pauline Hale stated on September 7 that confidentiality rules prevented her from discussing the dropping of allegations. First, it says "7 of 9 allegations" were forwarded, giving the impression that the bulk of the charges were found worthy of investigation. This framing completely ignores the additional charges which were dropped and the dozens of additional allegations which have been dismissed or disregarded. The statement also claims that the existing allegations "remain unchanged from the time of referral by the Interim Chancellor." This is simply false, for they have been significantly modified and narrowed. In fact, the allegations as forwarded are not framed in these terms, but as very technical questions of attribution, citation and interpretation which simply do not fit the category of such "most serious charges." However, the subcommittee concluded that Ward, as he has always maintained, wrote the piece which appeared under Rebecca Robbins' name - thus making it impossible for him to have plagiarized it. On the Faye Cohen Fishing Rights article, the subcommittee concluded that "if it is true" that Ward did not claim authorship of the piece - which he has never claimed - there was no misconduct. And, finally, regarding attribution of the 1972 "Dam the Dams" pamphlet, the subcommittee found that it was properly credited in a 1989 essay. This leaves only the question of whether Ward should have cited it earlier rather than later in a 1993 article (reprinted in 2002). On the intentional spread of disease among American Indians, the subcommittee found no evidence of intentional mischaracterization of sources, questioning only whether Ward should have clarified or expanded certain citations. In the process, it acknowledged that his approach may be merely an "alternative interpretation." The final two allegations relate to whether Ward's evidence regarding legislative intent, actual implementation, and subsequent amendments are sufficient to support his "shorthand" description of the 1887 General Allotment Act and 1990 Arts and Crafts Act as involving "blood quantum" requirements. In other words, out of dozens of accusations against Ward, ranging from treason to advocacy of violence to personal threats to misrepresenting his identity to plagiarism, all that remain are a handful of questions regarding historical interpretation and the conventions of citation or attribution. Out of the more than 4,000 pages and 12,000 footnotes Ward has published, about 5 pages of text and 5 footnotes remain under scrutiny. This entire "investigation" has been undertaken in retaliation for speech which the University itself acknowledges to be protected by the First Amendment. The framing of allegations in terms of "research misconduct" does not alter that reality. Ward therefore challenged this use of academic procedure through the University's grievance procedure. The University's response, however, was that he has no internal recourse until the process is complete and, therefore, the damage done. In the meantime, the University has used the very existence of the ongoing investigation to withhold an award for teaching excellence, which was voted on by a significant majority of participating students, even though no aspect of Ward's classroom behavior is under investigation. Further, the administration is withholding a long-overdue sabbatical which was approved by Ward's dean last fall. The message is clear: politically unacceptable speech will be punished, in one way or another. The University has refused to explain how the allegations have been selected for investigation, and has consistently violated its own policies and procedures. It says Ward cannot challenge the legitimacy of the investigation until it is over, but the process could continue indefinitely given Interim Chancellor DiStefano's record of forwarding allegations whenever they appear in the media. In the meantime, the very existence of the investigation is being arbitrarily invoked to deny Ward rights and privileges which he has already earned. Ward has published over twenty books, several dozen book chapters and more than one hundred articles. An unprecedented effort to scour this substantial body of work and to portray it in the most negative light possible has yielded only the handful of questions described above. Can we accept CU's position that it is simply safeguarding "academic integrity" and still believe that the principle of academic freedom has any meaning? Will CU subject all faculty publications to equivalent scrutiny? We cannot be complacent over the fact that the University of Colorado has, thus far, been forced to retreat to arguments over what constitutes compliance with academic standards in a tiny fraction of Ward Churchill's publications. In Ward's case, we have been fortunate to have a large base of support and the resources to counter these attacks; most such struggles are not as visible, and few people have the resources to ride them out. Nonetheless, if we allow pretextual means to be used to quash critical thinking and political dissent, we may never know how many others have been silenced.
|
http://csua.com/feed/