AC Note: Some gullible souls on the left have fallen for Ward Churchill's claims of political martyrdom. These are as false as his perjured testimony in Colorado. The perjury began with his opening statement from the stand that he is an Indian. Mr. Churchill is Caucasian. The only hint of indigenous blood in Churchill's genealogical history is the possibility of a procreative interchange in the lower branches of his family tree -- over two hundred years ago. As for his statement that the victims of 9/11 were "Little Eichmans," this is agent provocateur talk. Many of those who died on Black Tuesday were Muslims who happened to be inside the WTC that day. Does his Nazi crack apply to them? Some 12- 18% of the victims were Jewish, roughly 400 of the dead. Were they "little Eichmanns," too?
His inflammatory statement displayed an absolute lack of empathy for surviving family members, regardless of their ethnicity.
But the "Eichmann" statement did reflect on the left, a taint used sweepingly by the far-right to discredit progressives. Perhaps this was the objective, because many of the Indians who dealt with Churchill have denounced him over the years as an FBI provocateur. I've examined that evidence and agree with them.
Churchill is ethically bankrupt. I have no doubt that he deserved to be drummed out of the University of Colorado, however one reacts to his crass "little Eichmanns" generalization:
" ... Numerous examples of research misconduct on Churchill's part have come to light. More than twenty scholars on four different CU committees have heard Churchill's case. All unanimously agree that Churchill is guilty of multiple counts of plagiary, fabrication, and falsification. All agree that Churchill deserves serious sanctions for his misconduct. ... "
Churchill is a Jack-of-all-frauds. Inside Higher Ed notes that Churchill "repeatedly has portrayed his critics as conservatives, but some of those who brought complaints were scholars who have done considerable work in Native American history, frequently exposing the various wrongs inflicted on Indians by the U.S. government." ...
This article observes that Ward Churchill and his defenders have offered twelve different excuses for the plagiarism charges against Churchill. The excuses are contrasted with the established ethical standards governing American scholars. Each excuse is also compared against the available evidence in Churchill's case specifically. It is found that several of Churchill's excuses highlight ambiguities in the established ethical standards, indicating the need for further debate in the scholarly community in order to more precisely delineate the boundary between ethical scholarship and unethical scholarship. It is also found that the evidence of Churchill's plagiarism overwhelms any ambiguities, and that each of his twelve excuses fails to justify his plagiarism.
|Title:||Ward Churchill's Twelve Excuses for Plagiarism|
|Publication Info:||Ann Arbor, MI: MPublishing, University of Michigan Library 2007|
|Availability:||This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact email@example.com for more information.|
|Source:||Ward Churchill's Twelve Excuses for Plagiarism Thomas Brown
vol. II, 2007
|Article Type:||Perspective and Opinion|
|PDF:||Download full PDF [320kb ]|