[News] Ward Churchill Battle Update

[Anti-Imperialist News]

Following is the text of Mr. Churchill's response 
to the Investigative Committee of the University 
of Colorado's accusation of "academic 
misconduct." Following this is the Statement from 
the Chair of Prof. Chrchill's Dept.
-----------------------

Statement of Ward Churchill May 16, 2006

I have received the report of the Investigative 
Committee of the University of Colorado and 
consider it a travesty. This "investigation" has 
all along been a pretext to punish me for 
engaging in constitutionally protected speech 
and, more generally, to discredit the sorts of 
alternative historical perspective I represent.

There is blatant conflict of interest involved. 
Interim Chancellor DiStefano, who has 
consistently and publicly declared his bias 
against me, has served from the outset as both "complainant" and judge.

Despite my repeated requests for an investigation 
conducted by unbiased experts, the committee was 
composed primarily of CU insiders. Although both 
were available and willing to serve, the 
investigative panel included neither American 
Indian scholars nor persons competent in American Indian Studies.

To all appearances the committee was composed 
with an eye toward precluding the involvement of 
individuals knowledgeable in my discipline, as 
well as the context of indigenous history and 
belief that I have quite consistently brought to bear in my scholarship.

As a result, it was necessary to devote much of 
the 120-day investigative period, not to 
examining "the facts" at issue in my case, but to 
acquainting the committee with some of the most 
rudimentary procedures employed in American 
Indian Studies. Had qualified individuals been 
included on the panel, this preemption of my 
ability to respond to substantive matters would not have occurred.

Although the rules allow for extensions of the 
"deadline" for reporting, and despite the fact 
that I repeatedly requested an additional 30 days 
in which to formulate adequate responses to the 
highly complex and steadily-changing questions 
posed by the committee, the committee declined to 
allow any extension whatsoever.

The upshot is that the committee's report is 
often self-contradictory. It frequently 
misrepresents or conflicts with the evidence 
presented. In many respects, it is patently false.

As things stand, the entire procedure appears to 
be little more than a carefully-orchestrated 
effort to cast an aura of legitimacy over an 
entirely illegitimate set of predetermined 
outcomes. It follows that I reject and will 
vigorously contest each and every finding of misconduct.
================================

<www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_4732234,00.html>

Albert Ramirez's letter to CU administrators
By Albert Ramirez
May 27, 2006

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE WARD CHURCHILL CASE AND ON 
ETHNIC STUDIES AT C.U., BOULDER.
Albert Ramirez-- Chair, Department of Ethnic Studies
University of Colorado, Boulder

Contextual Factors in the Ward Churchill Case

On May 16, the "Report of the Investigative 
Committee of the Standing Committee on Research 
Misconduct at the University of Colorado at 
Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic 
Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill" was 
made public. The report is the latest in a series 
of investigative inquiries that began in February 
of 2005. The findings and conclusions are 
serious, as are the possible sanctions 
recommended by each of the individual members of 
the committee. As with earlier conclusions 
reached by different panels and committees, the 
recommendations were made public and made 
available to the local and national media. On May 
20, Professor Churchill submitted his response to 
the report, entitled "Summary of Fallacies in the 
University of Colorado Investigative Committee 
Report of May 9, 2006." While the committee’s 
assessment of Professor Churchill’s work leads to 
attributions of research misconduct, in his 
response to the report, Professor Churchill 
alleges that the committee’s document "contains 
numerous false statements, misrepresentations of 
fact, and internal contradictions." Given the 
polarized and contradictory nature of the two 
sets of conclusions and interpretations 
concerning the work of Professor Churchill and 
the work of the investigative committee, there 
remains a high probability that this case will 
ultimately go to court. Consequently, this paper 
will not address the allegations of research 
misconduct contained in the report but rather 
will focus on some of the contextual issues addressed by the committee.

The committee begins its report by noting its 
"concern regarding the timing and, perhaps, the 
motives for the University’s decision to initiate 
these charges at this time." The committee, quite 
correctly, goes on to stipulate that these 
external factors are beyond its charge, and that 
it has attempted to keep "the background and 
origins of this particular dispute out of our 
consideration of the particular allegations." The 
Committee uses the analogy of " a motorist who is 
stopped for speeding because the police officer 
was offended by the contents of her bumper 
sticker, and who otherwise would have been sent 
away with a warning, is still guilty of speeding, 
even if the officer’s motive for punishing the 
speeder was the offense taken to the speeder’s 
exercise of her right to free speech. No court 
would consider the improper motive of the police 
officer to constitute a defense to speeding, 
however protected by legal free speech guarantees 
the contents of the bumper sticker might be." 
Using this analogy, the committee sees itself as 
the "court" which is investigating whether or not 
the driver ­ Ward Churchill - is guilty of the 
specific charge of speeding ­ research misconduct 
- and therefore views the other contextual factors as irrelevant.

Continuing further with this analogy -- we would 
hope that the judicial system in which the 
particular case of the speeder is embedded would 
at some point look at the broader issues of equal 
justice for all motorists. Are the scales of 
justice balanced or are they tilted in favor of 
certain individuals and against other persons who 
might not display the correct bumper sticker? 
What if the police officer only stops speeders 
who display this particular bumper sticker, and 
does not stop or give tickets to other speeders 
who either do not display this particular bumper 
sticker, or who display a bumper sticker in 
concert with the police officer’s own values and 
ideas? What if other drivers going twenty miles 
beyond the legal speed limit are not stopped and 
ticketed, while drivers with the incorrect bumper 
sticker are stopped when they are driving only 
five miles above the legal speed limit? What if 
this bias extends beyond one police officer, and 
is a system-wide bias among police officers in 
general. What if persons who otherwise might 
express their freedom of speech through their 
bumper stickers are cognizant of this system-wide 
bias, and are therefore intimidated and reluctant 
to express their opinions through the use of 
bumper stickers or through any other means, thus 
surrendering their right of free speech?

Whereas the committee has the luxury of not 
having to address these broader, contextual 
questions, the University does not. A fair and 
unbiased decision by the University regarding 
Ward Churchill must take into consideration the 
University’s own reasons and motives for the 
initiation of this investigation, as well as the 
outside influencing factors that impacted the 
University’s ultimate decision. The University’s 
decision will have a significant effect on the 
entire university community. The faculty, in 
particular, must remain reassured by the results 
of this investigative process that they will not 
someday be targeted because of their own "bumper stickers."

The committee’s "disquiet" regarding the timing 
and motives regarding these allegations " is 
exacerbated by the fact that the formal 
complainant in the charges before us is the 
Interim Chancellor of the University, despite the 
express provision in the Laws of the Board of 
Regents of the University of Colorado that 
faculty members’ ‘efforts should not be subjected 
to direct or indirect pressures or interference 
from within the university, and the university 
will resist to the utmost such pressures or 
interference when exerted from without.’ " Now is 
the time for the University to reflect on these 
questions and to engage in a process of 
introspective analysis. The University needs to 
render a judgment on itself before it renders a 
judgment either for or against one of its own 
members of the university community.

As mentioned above, the committee expressed 
concern about the fact that "the formal 
complainant in the charges before us is the 
Interim Chancellor of the University." It should 
be a concern, since the administrative officer to 
whom the committee and the Standing Committee on 
Research Misconduct is sending its allegations of 
research misconduct ­ and who will render the 
final decision in this matter-- is the very same
University officer who made the initial complaint 
to the faculty committee! There is something 
inherently wrong, in terms of due process, with 
an investigative system in which the same person 
or office is the complainant as well as the judge and prosecutor.

Instead of sending the allegations directly to a 
faculty committee, the initial investigative 
panel consisted not of faculty, but of the then 
Provost of the University of Colorado at Boulder 
and now Interim Chancellor, and of two Deans whom 
he appointed to serve on this panel. The panel 
found reasonable grounds for sending the 
allegations to a faculty committee. This is 
problematical for several reasons, not the least 
of which is the question of conflict of interest, 
since two of the faculty members of the 
subsequent Investigative Committee report 
directly or indirectly to one of these deans, and 
the third member reports directly to the other 
dean. While there is no reason to believe that 
this had any role in the investigative process 
with respect to these three faculty, it does 
raise the appearance of administrative 
impropriety. This could have been avoided had the 
initial panel investigating these allegations 
been a faculty panel, and not an administrative one.

Ethnic Studies at C.U. - Boulder

Although Professor Churchill has been the primary 
subject of scrutiny and of investigation, it is 
evident that he has not been the only person 
placed under the academic, bureaucratic, and 
political microscope. So too, have been his 
colleagues in the Department of Ethnic Studies. 
So too, have been not just the majors and minors 
in ethnic studies, but all students who take 
ethnic studies courses at the University of 
Colorado. Some politicians and public officials 
have even questioned the very discipline of 
Ethnic Studies, and its legitimacy as a field of 
study within academia. Unfortunately, in the past 
15 months since the beginning of this 
investigative process, the University has elected 
to remain silent in this regard and has failed to 
respond to those who have also prejudged the department and the discipline.

On April 25, 2005, the faculty of the Department 
of Ethnic Studies submitted a formal letter to 
the Board of Regents, to President Betsy Hoffman, 
and to Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano 
informing them of the numerous e-mails and phone 
calls the department was receiving as a function 
of the media coverage regarding Ward Churchill. 
Many of these e-mails were racist and extremely 
acrimonious, questioning not only Professor 
Churchill’s right to be at this university, but 
that of the Department of Ethnic Studies as well. 
In the letter, the Department requested that the 
University publicly support and defend ethnic 
studies, and indicated its willingness to work 
with these university administrators in order to 
change the racial climate on campus. After more 
than one year since this letter was written, the 
Department is still awaiting a response. One can 
only wonder if Professor Churchill had been a 
member of any another department, if that entire 
department would have been prejudged by the 
public as well. And if so, if the administration 
would have completely disregarded that 
department’s request to work with its faculty to 
resolve the issues created by the controversy.

Consequently, if any of the sanctions recommended 
by the Investigative Committee are implemented by 
the University, not only will the critics of 
Professor Churchill feel justified, but also 
those who have generalized from this single case 
to the C.U. Department of Ethnic Studies and to 
the field of ethnic studies as a whole. The 
University has a responsibility, therefore, in 
whatever decision it might make concerning 
Professor Churchill, to simultaneously indicate 
its support concerning the legitimacy of ethnic 
studies, and to acknowledge the contribution that 
the Department of Ethnic Studies has made to the 
teaching and scholarly mission of the University of Colorado.

It is puzzling, in fact, that the University has 
not taken a more supportive role in regard to the 
department, since ethnic studies at C.U. has 
contributed significantly to the research and 
teaching mission of the University. With respect 
to research and scholarship, for example, the 
current ten full-time faculty in the department 
have written 26 books and authored more than 280 
journal articles or book chapters. This scholarly 
record compares quite favorably with that of the 
"well-developed ethnic studies programs at four 
major research universities" mentioned in the 
report of the investigative committee. In the 
past three years alone, the C.U. ethnic studies 
faculty have produced five books and ten 
forthcoming books, fifty articles or book 
chapters, and about another twelve forthcoming, 
and dozens of encyclopedia entries and book 
reviews. The ethnic studies faculty maintain 
membership in an array of major professional 
organizations, with several of these faculty 
holding leadership positions in most of them, as 
well as serving as journal editors and on 
advisory boards. With respect to teaching, 
several of the faculty have won teaching awards. 
The average instructor rating for the Boulder 
campus is 3.37; the average for the ethnic 
studies faculty is 3.38. The average course 
rating for the campus is 3.21, and for the 
department it is 3.27. These higher ratings for 
the department are not due to inflated student 
grades, since the average student grade for the 
campus is 3.30, and for the department it is 3.28.

It is critical that the University affirm its 
support of the Department of Ethnic Studies. The 
University can no longer continue to remain 
silent in this regard, unless it wants to send a 
message to other academic departments on campus 
that, when they are at risk and under attack by a 
vocal segment of the bureaucratic and political 
establishment, they too, are on their own.

----------------------




The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
www.freedomarchives.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20060530/3e108fef/attachment.htm>