Ward Churchill and Murdering US Officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeeper - I stand corrected.

But, it won't be his distasteful rhetoric that gets him fired, he already got a pass on that. His plagarism and lying will show that he's not fit to be a professor.

Btw, in the article he mentions Adolph Eichmann again, I think this guy is obsessed with Eichmann.
 
Last edited:
ward who?

Ward Churchill is just stating out loud, what most leftists believe but won't say.

Penn&Teller!

Hey...got news for you. I live in Portland and call the left my friends. I don't like what he had to say and FWIW: I have never, ever heard *anyone* echo his beliefs, words or suggestions among the left here. Not one person. No one. I guess I am just not hanging around with the "right" leftists?

I know its all in the vogue to consider the dinezens of the left "the enemy" but judging 1/2 the people in the US by the comments of one nutball is about as correct as the left inferring that all conservatives are drug addicts by using Rush as the barometer.

This dope got a speaking gig here cuz of his infamous remarks and the press it generated (on fox and a few other sources). If a few students wanna pay this yokel to speak, let 'em. *I* won't defend him. I *will* however, defend his right to say whatever the heck he wants.

But some things said can still have consequences - which is one of the risks when speaking maybe too freely.
But to spew his hatred of America while banking 90K a year at a University, isn't protected under the Constitution.

First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE SPEECH "ZONE". All of America is a free speech zone. Let him do his worst. America can take it.

Sr. Weaver is entitled to his opinion, however misinformed and flat out wrong it is. Just as we are all entitled to our own opinions, however...you get the idea.

Thats the 1st amendment for ya.
 
Glad to see that so many people here who rail about the curtailment of personal freedoms are happily supporting taking individual freedoms away from someone just because he does or says something that you do not like.

Churchill has become the newest strawman for the talking heads (like O'reilly) to burn in effigy to show to their followers that the world of academia is somehow "against" America. For the shameful carnival that ensued after he wrote "On chickens coming to roost" (or something to that effect, I forget...the one about 9/11) there has NEVER been any proof that Churchill EVER plagerized anything and I don't think there will ever be any proof. While I can't vouch for what he said recently, his article about 9/11 is actually fairly benign, once you actually read it and understand what he is saying, but I know that is too much effort for some people, and most would rather bitch and moan than find out what they are supposed to be indignant about. Churchill used Hannah Arendt's term/theory "the banality of evil" to demostrate that the people who were working in the WTC buildings were part of a structure that, in the long term, was harming and oppressing people across the world in impoverished area's, but that in the short term, in those offices, it was nothing more than business deals and filing papers.

The obvious "gotcha" in this is that the people who were sweeping the floors were just trying to scrape by, but I think he is trying to make a theoretical point rather than trying to convince anyone that these people "deserved" to die.

In the end this is very unnerving for a person like myself (an academic who works in Religion) because it shows that in this time when freedoms and liberties are quickly being stripped away, once someone feels that what an academic says in "unpatriotic" that academic can be unjustly stripped of everything he or she has (and Churchill is a fully tenured professor meaning that he has a position that is set in stone). About a year and a half ago (when the Patriot Act II was passed I think) there was a small measure past that any University with a Middle Eastern/Near Eastern Studies program could be stripped of its funding if any of its material (including texts and professors) was deemed suitibly unpatriotic.

Whether or not you agree with Churchill is irrelevent, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent, the issue comes down to the fact that he has the right, and the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think.

For almost five hundred years math, science, and the humanities were held captive by the "systems" unwavering belief in the Aristotelian and Christian systems, and it would be a shame if we were to regress to forcing everyone to think in one certain path or be expelled from the Academy.
 
Tenure is tenure.

If you give someone "tenure" with stipulations, it's not tenure.

The whole point of tenure is to protect seasoned academics from bullsh|t like this.

That being said, I think Ward is just trying to stir the sh|tstorm right now and seeing how pissed off he came make everyone.
 
Hi Grand,

You make valid points, but I do disagree with a couple of them. I do agree that academics, like Churchill, absolutely do have the right, and yes likely the obligation to put forward their thoughts without fear of retribution. Freedom from retribution means several things including that his job shouldn't be at risk based on his ideas.

I do believe that our agreement, or lack there of, with Churchill is important. The very best way to handle guys like Churchill is to shine the bright light of enthusiastic analysis and debate on his ideas. Leave him alone personally, but take his ideas to the mat. Then the good people of this country will make up their own minds.

John
 
The First Amendment gives anyone, from gun rights activists to neo-nazis the right to speak their mind. I don't care what a jackass Ward Churchill is, he has the right to free speech.
I agree ... to a point, and with a statement like this he is teetering on the brink of crossing the line.

Courts have ruled (I believe including the SCOTUS) that freedom of speech does not extend to lies, and does not protect the inciting of disorder. I believe the way it was expressed is that there is no Constitutional right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there isn't a fire in said theater.

When a statement can be taken to heart by persons with less than his obvious intellectual standing (cough, cough), and such persons might be encouraged by his words to act out on their suggestion, as much as I believe in and support the freedom to hold and express an opinion, I believe here he is doing more. I believe he is actively seeking to foment rebellion in the ranks of our armed forces, and I believe that IS treasonous.
 
bravo!

I believe he is actively seeking to foment rebellion in the ranks of our armed forces, and I believe that IS treasonous.

I agree, FWIW, but we cannot silence him. We can, and should prosecuted him, but we cannot silence him.
 
The Grand Inquisitor said:
there has NEVER been any proof that Churchill EVER plagerized anything and I don't think there will ever be any proof.

Wrong. Plagarism is black and white, Ward Churchill did plagarize

excerpt from June 10, 2005 Rockymountain News Article
All the facts laid out in recent days point to one unavoidable conclusion: Churchill did plagiarize, and he did invent historical events to suit his political agenda.

True, it turns out that not all of the charges the standing committee on research misconduct is considering are equally damaging to the professor. His invention of facts surrounding the smallpox epidemic among the Mandan Indians in 1837 is more reprehensible than his misrepresentation of the Dawes Act.

His appropriation of Professor Fay Cohen's work for a 1992 essay is more inexcusable than his almost word-for-word use of a paragraph by Professor Rebecca Robbins.
 
Last edited:
You may have proved that I was wrong, and if I am wrong, he should be punished for that, but I seem to recall that this mongraph in which he presumably plagerized was actually a collection of research he had released (to make condensed info available) and from what he says, what he is being charged with is exatly what he set out to do, to put large, unedited, pieces of archive work available in one volume.

I don't know if he improperly cited something, or if he really did take a piece of previously written work, and with malice aforethought, use it as his own, in that case he does need to be chastised, seriously chastised.
 
Churchill is vehemently denying any plagarism. One excuse could be that he is putting out works that otherwise wouldn't be seen. I think thats a cheap excuse for stealing others work. He did publish a compilation of others essays, which isn't plagarism, but there are several other instances where he has lifted others work as his own.

His plagarism isn't limited to just written works either. He sold limited edition signed prints that were virtual Xerox copies of someone elses painting

He also sold his own arts and crafts and called then authentic Indian artwork, while he claimed to be 1/16 Native American, which is not true. He had a step-grandmother who was part Native American, no blood relation.

Some might call the whole fiasco a witch hunt, but he's made it a point to be heard, and his entire professional life has been a charade.

But he is into guns. :D
 
Churchill seems like a normal guy, and since we all do stupid things, whenever any of us are put under heavy scrutiny, we all tend to come out looking tarnished, and that is what is happening with Churchill.

And in regards to his claim to be native, I guess the final word is that he is offically a member of the _____ tribe (I forget which one) and I know this because he has a certificate saying as much (I assume this is normal...) and some of the tribal leaders have vouched for him.


When this sh|tstorm settles, I think Churchill will be best for uncovering a quote from L. Frank Baum (author of the Wizard of Oz) saying, "We need to exterminate the remaining Indians". Even though it is not my field of study, I do know that he is considered a serious force in his own field (Native American studies) and has some pretty important texts in print.
 
The Grand Inquisitor said:
And in regards to his claim to be native, I guess the final word is that he is offically a member of the _____ tribe (I forget which one) and I know this because he has a certificate saying as much (I assume this is normal...) and some of the tribal leaders have vouched for him.

Sorry, wrong again. He was made an honorary associate member of the tribe because he had no Indian ancestry. The tribe has done everything to disassociate themselves from Churchill

excerpt from Rockymountain News said:
Ward Churchill's claim of membership in the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians is fraudulent, according to a scathing statement released by the tribal office.

The statement, issued May 9 in the name of the tribal leader, Chief George Wickliffe, and posted on its Web site Tuesday, does not mince words:

"The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990s because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry."

The tribe said that all of Churchill's "past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment,' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band."

Churchill could not be reached Tuesday, and his attorney, David Lane, did not respond to calls for comment.

You can't say that we all make mistakes and this is OK. I try to live my life pretty honestly as do most people. This isn't losing your car keys. He is living a lie.

As for your quote
L. Frank Baum (author of the Wizard of Oz) saying, "We need to exterminate the remaining Indians".

He is not a Native American !

And please clean up your language, I hate to see threads get locked becuase someone can't express themselves with out using profanity.
 
Last edited:
His rights to free speech extend only as far as not infringing on others' rights. Once he starts actively encouraging the murder of other people, he loses the right of free speech.

I'm all for letting people say whatever they want, even when I don't agree with them (which is most of the time). But just as yelling "fire" in a crowded place isn't protected speech, publicly calling for the murder of military officers - or anyone else - is not protected either. Of course, since he phrased it as a rhetorical question he narrowly skirts that little detail :rolleyes: :cuss:
 
Whether or not you agree with Churchill is irrelevent, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent, the issue comes down to the fact that he has the right, and the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think.

A bit presumptuous donchathink?

Acadamia certainly doesn't have a lock the industry of 'thinking people.'

I get paid mainly to think and to communicate. If I were to go out on weekends and show up in the news acting like a jackass often enough, I would find myself out of a job in a hurry. Like it or not, our public actions can influence how people perceive other facets of our lives. Being in a negative light can cause loss of contracts or sales for my company if potential customers make a link between the jackassery, the person behind the jackassery, and the company the person happens to work for.

Unfortunately, a state university really isn't harmed by such actions. If enrollments fall, the taxpayers pick up the difference in lost revenue, if the university happens to attract more students because of the publicity, the taxpayers once again spend money to subsidize the institution. There is a very big disconnect from reality.

That is why I take the words of tenured professors that happen to be on subjective matters with an ample grain of salt.

Ward Churchill has the right to act like a buffoon only because the rest of us subsidize his right to do so. I say let him say what he wants, if we don't get much enlightenment from what he says, at least there's entertainment value.
 
Cracked Butt -- Ditto

Whether or not you agree with Churchill is irrelevent, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent, the issue comes down to the fact that he has the right, and the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think.
The Grand Inquisitor -- I guess being an academic makes you automatically superior to the rest of us who are not "paid to think". BTW, I think I will tell the owner of the company I work for today that I am not "paid to think".

What a crock. Guess what Inquisitor? The people who are creative and contribute the most to our nation are out of academia. How do I know this, DO THE MATH. They get PAID MORE than cowardly professors hiding behind their tenure. Oh, also the productive DON'T HAVE TENURE. They PERFORM 24/7 or they are GONE. I am sure it makes you shudder, but that is the way of the world.

The one exception may be in research, which might flourish better in an academic, non capitalist, setting. The rest of academia are :barf: .

Oh, and Ward Churchill can spout his poison all day. All he does is reveal a true face of academia. (If he doesn't, why does he still have a job?)

Have a nice day.
 
"Ward Churchill was all about the publicity, until it came to light that he plagarized, changed or manufactured the facts of the works he cited, and lied about his ancestry."

He "plagarized,etc.....and lied about...." Sounds to me like he's a well-adjusted graduate of Looney Left prep school. What's the problem??

But I do like that "running mate for Hitlary" line. Can we get that rumor going?

rr
 
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:

About a year and a half ago (when the Patriot Act II was passed I think) there was a small measure past that any University with a Middle Eastern/Near Eastern Studies program could be stripped of its funding if any of its material (including texts and professors) was deemed suitibly unpatriotic.

"Patriot Act II" was not passed.

Can you cite a source for your claim of funding being able to be stripped because of unpatriotism if there's a Middle Eastern studies program?

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:

Churchill seems like a normal guy, and since we all do stupid things, whenever any of us are put under heavy scrutiny, we all tend to come out looking tarnished, and that is what is happening with Churchill.

Yep. Those good ol' normal guys who continuously lie, make history up, pass off works of others as their own, call the people who worked and died at the WTC "little Eichmanns" and advocate fragging US military personnel. Where would America be today without normal guys like him? :rolleyes:
 
People like Ward Churchill used to make me angry, but now they just make me laugh. He has his head up his acedemia so far that he wouldn't recognise real life if it came up and slapped him in the chops.

When I went to college after my military stint, it was so easy to tell the difference between the profs who had made their way straight out of high school vs the few who had real life experiences to draw upon.

Ward does not have much to draw on, except for his well insulated academic theories, very steeped in horse apples, and very distant from reality.

Great to hear that he has the 1st amendment rights, bought and paid for by non thinkers who do not come close to his mental giant ego, which is all he is feeding.

When we all talk of the 2nd amendment here on this board, the responsibility of that right is well spoken in the same breath, as it should be. To act irresponsibly with our rights as firearms owners does indeed endanger the populace. For some people, I guess we can say any irresponsible thing we want and get a pass on it. After all, they are just words. :rolleyes:

News flash: Words have meaning and consequences too. To advocate the death of commissioned officers as a general rule is not the kind of talk I should be hearing out of a college professor.
 
Yep. Those good ol' normal guys ...
Don't forget the perspective, Warbow, if you're standing in the hallowed halls he likely would seem quite normal... ;)
 
Incredibly, Mr. Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Churchill seems like a normal guy...
Incomprehensibly, Mr. Grand Inquisitor also wrote:
Whether or not you agree with Churchill is irrelevent, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevent, the issue comes down to the fact that he has the right, and the obligation as a professor and as an academic to challenge the status quo and recieved wisdom, because that is the duty of those who are paid to think.
Ward Churchill is not a normal guy, unless you live in academia, I suppose. He didn't copy other people's works and claim them as his because of sloppy penmanship or inadequate source referencing or any other excuse. He plagiarized, pure and simple. He not an Indian, he bought a fake association card from a local tribe who has publicly denounced Churchill. With that identity theft he applied for a position at CU that was open only to a real Indian.

The duty of an academic is not to challenge the status quo. That may be a part of what they have an obligation to do, but that arrogance is now an obsession: to preach hatred, to distort history, to condemn good.

For almost five hundred years math, science, and the humanities were held captive by the "systems" unwavering belief in the Aristotelian and Christian systems, and it would be a shame if we were to regress to forcing everyone to think in one certain path or be expelled from the Academy.

Well, Mr. Grand, you now have your own system of unwavering belief, a pedagogy of hate and lies, deceit and fraud. Ward Churchill is your own cult leader.
 
Last edited:
Churchill seems like a normal guy, and since we all do stupid things, whenever any of us are put under heavy scrutiny, we all tend to come out looking tarnished, and that is what is happening with Churchill.

:what:

and I repeat

:what:

Mr. GI, if you are right, I will happily belong to the ranks of the abnormal.

BTW, I worked in Academia for 17 years, got tenure, full professorship -- and then left to go to the private sector because I could not stand the arrogant stupidity of the left on campus, as exemplified by Mr. Ward Churchill. He is far from alone, and as was earlier pointed out is either brave enough or stupid enough to say in public what many say in private. The hatred of America, religion, the military, business, etc. is rampant in the ranks of America's so called academic elite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top