<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br><br>
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.<br>
-----------------------<br><br>
Statement of Ward Churchill May 16, 2006<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br>
================================<br><br>
<<a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_4732234,00.html" eudora="autourl">
www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_4732234,00.html</a>
><br><br>
Albert Ramirez's letter to CU administrators<br>
By Albert Ramirez<br>
May 27, 2006<br><br>
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE WARD CHURCHILL CASE AND ON ETHNIC STUDIES AT C.U.,
BOULDER.<br>
Albert Ramirez-- Chair, Department of Ethnic Studies<br>
University of Colorado, Boulder<br><br>
Contextual Factors in the Ward Churchill Case<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
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."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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<br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Ethnic Studies at C.U. - Boulder<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
----------------------<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>