Genociding Ward Churchill for over a 20th of a century

CNews 31August06

CNews 27August06

After the talk, I had a little bit of free time, so I decided I'd find Ward Churchill's office. Found it pretty quickly, where the Ethnic Studies office is located. They had some murals on the wall, which were, well... quite disturbing. It was all about how America is trying to recover from its history of slavery, domination, and oppression. They see the history of America as a history of oppression. Ward Churchill wasn't there. I had met him a few months back, but one of his colleagues that was there during this summer month, told me she thought he was in Japan with his wife.

CNews 25August06

The governing body of students at the University of Colorado at Boulder late Thursday voted in favor of the recommendations to fire professor Ward Churchill.

The University of Colorado Student Union voted 9-6, with one member abstaining, to follow the recommendations by an investigative committee and CU's interim chancellor that Churchill be dismissed for plagiarizing, fabricating and falsifying research, said student body president Charles Johnson.

CNews 24August06

From our Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back In The Water department: Reggie Dylan over at Teachers for a Democratic Society, attempts to refute Professor Thomas Brown's excellent essay (and, with it, CU's decision to fire Ward Churchill) with a few brief paragraphs, the only one of interest being this one he pulled from the CU Investigating Committee's report (emphasis ours):

“Our investigation has found that there is some evidence in written accounts of Indian reactions in 1837 and in native oral traditions that would allow a reasonable scholar who relies heavily on such sources to reach Professor Churchill’s interpretation that small pox was introduced deliberately among Mandan Indians near Fort Clark by the U.S. Army, using infected blankets. We therefore do not conclude that he fabricated his account.”

Dylan seems to place great importance on this conclusion (although he fails to mention another conclusion drawn by the committee that appears just two pages previous (emphasis ours, again): "We have seen no evidence to support Professor Churchill’s claim that the U.S. Army intended to kill off the Mandan Indians." The seeming contradiction of these two conclusions is quickly dispelled with the realization that in the first, the committee is talking about not just any scholar, but one who relies heavily on accounts of Indian reactions and on native oral traditions. Churchill's fabrications relied on no such reactions or traditions (heavily or otherwise); he appears instead to prefer misrepresenting the conclusions drawn by other scholars, or, whenever that proves too troublesome, simply inventing facts to fit his thesis. Only during the committee's investigation did Churchill mention oral tradition.

Dylan (who, despite his poorly-reasoned opposition to Professor Brown as well as his just-as-poorly-reasoned adoration of Churchill—as evinced by his invocation in his second paragraph of a Churchill, Si! Integrity, No! report worshipfully written by fellow devotee Thomas Mayer—has thus far avoided signing the TDS "Unfire Ward Churchill" petition) goes on to enumerate examples in the report itself that show racism directed against Indians existed on the frontier as well as in Washington, DC. Perhaps Dylan hopes that observing the mere existence of racism anywhere in the world is enough to prove it as a motivating factor for a genocide neither he nor Churchill seem able to prove, but fervently wish to be so. This, then, is the argument upon which Dylan rests his case contra Professor Brown, the nail upon which he hangs his hopes (nay, the hopes of all the world!) that finally, yes finally, he will save Churchill, refute Brown, silence the infidels, and incidentally, impress the chicks.

In any case, on the off chance Professor Brown himself will wish to dispense with Dylan's specious argument, we're content to leave Dylan (who also doesn't seem to be a member of any faculty, anywhere.... just what is he doing with a blog on the TDS site, anyway?) alone to do whatever it is he does when he's not filling a much-needed space over at TDS.

Update: And Professor Brown has, in fact, chosen to respond (first comment) to Reggie Dylan's critique.
Just a taste:

[...]Mr. Dylan overlooks the passages in my published article at Plagiary.com that specifically acknowledge that vague and unsubstantiated stories of deliberate infection by smallbox-infested items were already circulating in the 19th century. I also acknowledge that Indians at the time blamed white men for bringing the disease among them—and rightly so. I agree with the CU committee that Churchill did not invent these stories from whole cloth.

What Mr. Dylan fails to acknowledge is the fact that Churchill invented all of the specific details of his tale. That's why he was found guilty of fabrication.

CNews 23August06

I am the author and publisher of PirateBallerina.com, a website concerned with the case of Ward Churchill. I'm sure even a casual read of the website will reveal my perspective.

Until yesterday, I had considered you a reasonably bright individual who often made illuminating observations about the state of the American culture.

And then, yesterday, I discovered your 2002 essay (apparently reprinted from a OSU-OKC student publication) "What's Up With Dark Men?" in which you refer to black men as "darkies." I later discovered on the badeagle forum comments authored by you that again refer to blacks as "darkies." Additionally, I've found that you have made numerous blatantly racist statements that I won't bother to catalog here (although I'd certainly like to see your substantiation of this statement: "[t]here is a tremendous drive in many white women to experiment with the darkies.")

While I doubt very much you have a defense for the numerous instances of racism found in your writing, I extend to you the opportunity to defend your statements on PirateBallerina. Or anywhere else, if you prefer; I'll be happy to link to it if you'll notify me of its location.

Jim Paine

While we can't imagine a cogent defense for Yeagley's various assertions, in the interest of fairness, we're certainly willing to publish whatever he imagines to be a cogent defense.

Update: Well, that didn't take long. Here's the complete text of Yeagley's response:

To: jwpaine@thorby.com
From: "Dr. David Yeagley" <badeagle@badeagle.com>
Subject: them darkies singin'

Jim, I refer to all non-white people as darkies.  It is a mild mockery of 19th century English regard for any non-white race.  You might want to research just exactly when "white" came into use in reference to "white" people. 

You are mistaken in the idea that I use "darkies" exclusively or derisively in reference to blacks. 

You might look at the White Race category on BadEagle.com  (scroll down a bit). There are three forums.  Perhaps you could pick one, and hash out your objections there.  Registration is momentary.   I would welcome certainly welcome you.  I'm just too spread out to spend time on another site, and this discussion might get very deep.

Thanks for thinking of me.
David Yeagley 

PS:  I used the term "darkies" in the global non-white sense when I was talking on Bill O'Reilly's TV show last year.   It's just old fashioned.  Kind of romantic.  I haven't heard anyone object to it, but you.  Wait.  That's wrong.  People have objected to what they perceive as some "dark" motive behind it.   Racist? as you say.  I don't think so.

CNews 22August06

In less than 24 hours, we've doubled the number of signatories to our "Fire Ward Churchill" Statement of Support. The newest signer: Francis Rexford Cooley, Lecturer-in-General Studies (History), Paier College of Art.

...meanwhile, despite its narrow lead (464-2), the TDS "Unfire Ward Churchill" petition is pretty much dead in the water, with only four new signers in the past ten days. Quite surprising, really; we find it difficult to believe TDS has already exhausted the pool of academic idiots. But just in case, for posterity, we're still maintaining our hotlink-rich list of TDS signatories.

My antipathies toward Dr. Yeagley stems from his own self-admitted racism towards everyone except Europeans and “some” Aboriginals as well as his non-sequitur and thoroughly unsubstantiated rants in support of White supremacist power in the United States.

Even the European conservatives think he is a fool. Like Ann Coulter and the like-minded self-colonialised Michelle Malkin, Dr. Yeagley promotes himself as a cool-headed observer of the American socio-political landscape, yet his nonsensical and childish invective only makes sense to the narrow-minded White bigots he and the rest of the right-wing neo-conservative pundit lobby and the crack White House public relations corps design their propaganda for.

CNews 21August06

PirateBallerina is pleased to announce that this afternoon Professor Thomas D. Russell (DU, Sturm College of Law) became the first signatory to our "Fire Ward Churchill" Statement of Support. (On the downside, with that single signature we find we must now scuttle several days' worth of scornful sarcasm we were looking forward to heaping upon academia.)

CNews 20August06

Mildy OT: In a little over two weeks of operation, CU's "Ethics Hotline" has received a dozen complaints (right column, fifth item).
Excerpt:

CU officials have received 12 reports of wrongdoing via CU's new EthicsLine during its first two weeks of operation, according to internal audit Director Jean Stewart. The hotline, available since Aug. 1 at 1-800-677-5590 and www.ethicspoint.com, is intended to allow CU employees to anonymously report violations of law and serious or recurring violations of University policy.

CNews 18August06

CNews 17August06

From our GWGTDSTSOPBJ* department: the National Association of Chicana and Chicano Studies has passed a resolution in support of Ward Churchill. And they're gonna write a stern letter to Hank Brown informing him of their displeasure.
Excerpt:

Whereas, through a series of legally-questioned political and administrative maneuvers committees of mostly non-Native and non-Native American Studies academics were set up to “investigate” Churchill’s “academic integrity”; and

Whereas, the President of University of Colorado, Boulder has since decided to proceed on firing Churchill on questionable and flimsy report, despite three of five only recommending suspension;

Let it be resolved, that the National Association of Chicana and Chicano Studies hereby denounces the attacks on Professor Ward Churchill, on Ethnic Studies and similar disciplines and on the values of academic freedom and academic tenure.

CNews 16August06

A Different Statement of Support

Fire Ward Churchill

We, the undersigned faculty members of US institutions of higher learning, in order to protect and ensure the integrity of academic scholarship, applaud and support the efforts (however belated or inept) of the University of Colorado at Boulder to terminate the employment of Professor Ward Churchill, a documented historical fraud and serial plagiarizer.

[list of signatories can be found at the end of this post]

The above brief statement is PirateBallerina's response to the various petitions and statements of support for Ward Churchill we see here and there on the internet. Our statement represents no faction or party; it has no lengthy agenda, and its brevity is intentional: it is meant simply to show academic support for the sacking of a very bad scholar.

If you wish to add your signature to the above statement, email us your agreement. We'll accept the following signatories: US professors, regardless of discipline or field of study (also okay: retired/emeritus US professors).

We'll need the following information in your email:

• Your full name (for publication)
• Your title (professor, associate professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.)
• Your discipline/field of study (for publication)
• Your college or university (for publication)
• office phone number (not for publication, for private verification only)

A sample of what we won't accept:

• "independent scholars"
• students (unless we can verify that you are also a teacher at a college or university)
• academics from countries other than the United States

We don't kid ourselves; it's very unlikely we'll get many signatures; we're prepared for the possibility that we may not get one. The statement is very blunt, for one thing. For another, it makes no attempt to persuade; it assumes you've already educated yourself on the particulars of the Churchill case, enough to have a strong opinion.

If you find you do need additional information, the CU investigating committee's report is a good place to start. Also, Professor Thomas Brown has written an excellent paper dissecting one of Churchill's more notorious historical fabrications. PB itself has addressed Churchill's response to CU's charges, as well as the fallacious belief that in order to punish CU for its admittedly near-perfect record of mishandling the Churchill affair, CU must be forced to continue his employment.

One last caveat: Signatories are endorsing the one-sentence statement above, and nothing else. They are not indicating their support of or agreement with any other opinions expressed here on PB.

Important note: All institutional affiliations published with this list of signatories are provided for informational purposes only, and do not represent endorsement, official or tacit, by the respective institutions.

List of Academics Endorsing this Statement of Support:

1. Thomas D. Russell, J.D., Ph.D., Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law (Fields of study—law, American history; www.law.du.edu/russell)
2. Francis Rexford Cooley, M.A. (history), M.Ed., Lecturer-in-General Studies (History), Paier College of Art (University of Colorado alumnus)
3. Tim Zacharias, Adjunct Professor, History, Blue Mountain Community College

Robbing CU To Pay Churchill

by Jim Paine

Almost immediately (certainly within hours) following the release of the Investigating Committee's report on Ward Churchill's scholarly misconduct two months ago, academia registered its outrage—not at the plethora of historical frauds and plagiarisms of which Ward Churchill had been found abundantly guilty, but at the [choose all that apply: inept, ignorant, immoral, illegal] manner in which Churchill was investigated. Not a single professor, Churchill included, managed to marshal a cogent defense against the various charges (Churchill, in fact, invented new lies to support his previous lies). In what must be considered a tacit acknowledgement of Churchill's guilt, academics attacked CU's administrators.

And so, over the past few months, the ineptitude of CU administrators has become increasingly intertwined with (and inseparable from) Ward Churchill's historical fraud, to the point where (as in the case of the Teachers for a Democratic Society petition, to name the most prominent example) many wish to punish CU by forcing it to continue Churchill's employment there. Numerous signatories of the TDS petition have gone so far as to announce publicly that while they are cognizant of Churchill's fraudulent scholarship, they find CU's handling of the case more egregious (thus necessitating a call for Churchill's "re-hiring"). The petition itself, while stopping far short of acknowledging Churchill's fraud, strongly implies this same conclusion.

And yes, it is true that no "written complaints" about Churchill were received by CU until after the Hamilton College speaking engagement brought his 2001 "roosting chickens" essay to national attention (although numerous allegations of his historical frauds, plagiarisms, and misrepresentations—both personal and historical—had existed for years).

And yes, it is true that CU made the first error (or series of errors) when it hired Churchill and then almost immediately promoted him to a tenured associate professorship, despite the fact that Churchill had no doctorate (no advanced degree in any sort of history, in fact), had not undergone the usual lengthy pre-tenure process, and had possibly used his self-identification as an Indian (to this day an undocumented and unproven assertion) to obtain employment.

And yes, politicians and pundits, most notably Colorado Governor Bill Owens and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, expressed outrage at the "Roosting Chickens" essay. But outrage is a short-lived emotion; without further fuel it is quickly extinguished. Churchill might have returned to his Ethnic Studies Chair but for one problem: Ample fuel for additional outrage existed, each passing day (or so it seemed back then) brought a new allegation of impropriety, or fraud, or plagiarism, or intimidation on Churchill's part, the sheer number of which (and the insufficiency of Churchill's answers to them), kept Churchill himself in the public eye even while it pushed Churchill's scandalous essay into the shadows. It quickly became obvious to anyone with even a slight familiarity with the case that—if anything—CU had been far too sanguine (almost to the point of complicity) with Churchill's offenses.

(Parenthetically speaking, Churchill's fabrications are so obvious that it requires neither scholarship nor specialized knowledge to discover many of them; it merely requires the will to look—a fact that in and of itself damns his entire field of study, which has produced not a single scholar capable of and willing to step forward to challenge Churchill's more obvious lies (or even to admit the lies exist). It took academics outside Ethnic Studies to expose Churchill's various fabrications.)

Be that as it may, the academic supporters of Churchill—the TDS petition's authors and signatories among them—are wrongheaded to the point of willfulness. Leave aside for the moment the obvious idiocy of calling for the punishment of CU's bad behavior by pointedly rewarding Churchill's bad behavior. The two issues are not intertwined; they are separable. This is not a situation of a confession being thrown out as evidence because the police violated the criminal's rights to obtain the confession. This is more the case of a serial rapist who bragged of his attractiveness to the unsuspecting parents of his victims, annoying them to the point where they more closely examined his claims and discovered some disgusting truths. To put it more succinctly (and less outrageously), this is very much like the case of a man who, employing bombastic lies during a public debate, obliges his opponents to look more closely at his claims. Actually, this is not "very much like the case." This is exactly the case.

So yes, CU should certainly be made to answer for initiating and continuing for 15 years its relationship with Ward Churchill.

But in the final analysis, Churchill has no one to blame for his current disgrace but himself.

CNews 13August06

CNews 12August06

CU part-time adjunct professor of Ethnic Studies (and TDS signatory) Benjamin Whitmer proclaims Ward Churchill's bravery while weeping for our future... or perhaps just the future of his phony-baloney job
Excerpt:

* I’ve heard scores of CU faculty members express private support for Ward Churchill, while, with a few notable exceptions, always finding a way to weasel out of making their beliefs public. This was the most disheartening spectacle of all. While I expect administrators to evince the lowest kind of cowardice and servility, I had harbored some illusions about faculty members. After all, what’s the use of the protection granted by tenure if you’re too spineless to stand for anything?

* However, I’ve also seen Ward Churchill, Natsu Saito and the rest of the Ethnic Studies faculty resist the worst kind of bigotry and lynch-mob rhetoric with a kind of grace and courage that I can only hope to emulate. Watching most of CU’s faculty scuttle over themselves to prove their own craven mediocrity, I have been immensely proud to be a member of Ethnic Studies.

CNews 11August06

CNews 10August06

CNews 9August06

Lest you think me motivated by greed, I have pledged most of the P&T money to the ACLU of Colorado as a charitable contribution on behalf of Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, my law firm. If you are certain that the University of Colorado will in fact pay any invoices I submit, and you are willing to sign a personal guaranty of such payment, I will proceed with the defense of Professor Churchill. Otherwise, as counsel for Professor Churchill, I hereby demand that the P&T process immediately cease until such time as the University of Colorado is willing to abide by its own rules.

On Tuesday, Churchill's attorney, David Lane, sent CU a letter alleging that the school is violating its own policy by refusing to compensate Churchill for legal representation in his dismissal hearing.

But a spokesman for CU said the rule promising money to pay for an attorney is null and void, having never been approved by the Board of Regents.

Lane cited a section of the CU Faculty Handbook which says CU will pay up to $20,000 “for services directly related to the representation of a faculty member in a dismissal for cause case, so asŠ to ensure that the faculty member's case is effectively presented.” Lane told the Colorado Daily that CU's refusal to pay for Churchill's attorney was “the most blatant manifestation” of “their relentless pursuit” to fire Churchill for political reasons.

Lane said that CU was cherry-picking what rules it wanted to follow.

“Churchill didn't make up this rule,” said Lane. “The University of Colorado made up this rule and put it into effect, and now they want to pick and choose which of their own rules they want to follow.”

Ken McConnellogue, executive director of communications for the CU system, said the rule never went into effect. Faculty wrote the rule, he said, and the Board of Regents vetoed it.

“It's not university policy,” said McConnellogue. “The faculty senate passed this policy. The regents never adopted it. In fact, they specifically decided that they could not adopt it” (in December 2002).

The regents don't review all rules passed by the faculty senate, said McConnellogue, but they examined this one because it involved spending state money.

“The regents shouldn't have put it on their Web site if they didn't like it,” countered Lane, referring to a link on the Board of Regents' Web site that connects to the Faculty Handbook, where the rule is written.

“I didn't put it there, I didn't make up all this shit,” said Lane. “They did.”

...and the Boulder Daily Camera has pretty much the same story, although it concludes with a rather timid and vacillating mention of Professor Thomas Brown's paper in Plagiary, while noting that last year Churchill (ever the pedant) called Brown a "snot-nosed punk."

Update: PB reader Daniel Ong (and CU regent candidate) has researched the issues at hand, and posted a string of comments covering what he found; we've tidied up his comments and present them here:

Lane announced this denial of remuneration for defense counsel on the 630 KHOW Caplis and Silverman show around 6:15 p.m. MDT yesterday and said it would be in the papers today.

Lane is relying on Faculty Senate Bylaws provision II.D.1.e.5(d) "Conducting Dismissal for Cause Hearings," part 1, approved by the Faculty Senate December 3, 2002.

Dismissal of faculty for cause is covered by Regent Laws Article 5 Part C and Regent Policies 5-I. Part V of Policy 5-I provides for changes to these procedures to include notice to and approval of the Faculty Senate and says the current Policy was "Adopted December 19, 2002" and supersedes Rules of the Faculty Senate and subsequent amendments, so it is unclear solely from this policy if the Faculty Senate approved omitting remuneration of counsel to Party facing dismissal from this Policy.

Minutes of the December 19, 2002 regular (business) meeting of the Regents of the University of Colorado show that under C. Action Items - New - System, 6. Board Policies on Faculty Grievances and Dismissal for Cause (Regent Policies 5-H and 5-I) there was specific discussion of such remuneration:

'Counsel/Vice President Sweet discussed the key provisions, particularly the provision for the university to contribute a specified amount to the reasonable fee of the attorney for services related to representation of a faculty member in a dismissal for cause formal hearing. Regarding that provision, the resolution being acted upon today "essentially holds that provision back until such time as the attorney general's office approves (it) as being consistent with state law and fiscal rules. . . . The board will be advised of what the attorney general says. . . . If the attorney general authorizes this . . . then this provision would go into effect automatically without further action by the board. . . . "'

Text of the resolution itself apparently is not available online. The attorney general's office mentioned in the minutes would presumably now be that of John Suthers (R), running for election to a full term this year after replacing Ken Salazar who won election to the U.S. Senate. This matter could provide further delay in the dismissal process if Lane is successful in getting a court to suspend the dismissal hearing pending resolution of this matter, 3 1/2 years after the Board of Regents passed a resolution requesting advisement.

Update: The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that Churchill's sock-puppet, David Lane, is calling for a 'revolution' among CU professors:

"I want them to know nobody is safe," attorney David Lane said. "If CU can (mess) with Ward Churchill, they can (mess) with anyone."

CNews 8August06

Tailoring the facts to fit one’s theory constitutes neither good science nor good journalism. Rather, it is intellectually dishonest and, when published for consumption by a mass audience, adds up to propaganda.

Read the entire paper to see just how deliciously ironic that statement is.

BTW: The one disappointment of the Brown paper is that he neglected to use a paraphrase of Mary McCarthy: "Everything [Churchill] writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'."

It is now a cliché to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel.

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

CNews 7August06

Unfortunately, the wind seems to have gone out of the sails of the TDS "Unfire Ward Churchill" petition, which has acquired only 15 new signatories in the past three days (current total: 443). Even with the additions (at long last) of Churchill cronies/acolytes George "Tink" Tinker, Michael Yellow Bird, and Chris Mato Nunpa, the Teachers for a Democratic Society apparently feel it's necessary to include signatures from several students, as well as individuals claiming affiliation with "Veterans for Peace", "The Meadowlark Center", and the "Native American Alliance of Ohio." As always, we've added the new signatories to our Usual Suspects list.

...meanwhile, a comment on today's CNews from one of our regular readers, Noj, reminded us that it was nearly a year and a half ago that we observed:

One of the unexpected joys of covering the Ward Churchill debacle is the opportunity to come into contact with his many, many academic supporters. Now, we're not talking about the garden-variety professor who feels compelled to hold his nose while standing up for Churchill's "Freedom of Speech." No, we're talking about the dyed-in-the-wool, tinfoil-hat-wearing academic posse forming around Churchill like human shields around a [P]alestinian splodeydope.

CNews 5August06

It's precisely because I present multiple and competing perspectives on an issue that I'm often honestly asked, by students struggling to formulate a view of the world, "well, what do YOU think?". It’s at that point that I "champion"—not "urge", as per Stanley Fish’s worry—particular ideas on what I intend to be well-formulated theoretical, empirical, and practical grounds. I don't believe that there is anything wrong or unethical with modeling this kind of higher order thinking for students who are still developing their skills of "reflective judgment" (as mounds of research in higher education on the topic of student cognitive maturation has amply demonstrated), especially if all along you've been establishing a basis of mutual trust and understanding. It seems much more problematic to throw multiple viewpoints up against a wall and say "OK, I'm done. You work it out for yourselves". Some students will, and some need something more (students do learn differently, don't they?). I also think that the "inside-outside" classroom distinction is evaporating, at least on my campus where we are committed to collaborative learning, service learning and civic engagement, and service to the public good. I've found that my students rather like the fact that I don't create firewalls between inside and outside of class, nor between my different identities as a scholar, teacher, parent, and activist. Same goes for the many tax-paying citizens with whom I interact as, again, part of my institution's commitment to enhancing learning in the community.

CNews 4August06

"I think it will be the most rigorous and most accountable tenure process in the nation," said Mark Heckler, provost at CU's Denver and Health Sciences Center campus and leader of the university's tenure committee.

Sure. You bet.

CNews 3August06

Must be moonbat mating season (ht to jgm over at Drunkablog)

The call:

"We all know that the next targets being lined up by ACTA will exploit similar reactionary gendered, sexualized, and class-based resonances among the white mainstream public and faculty to attack Queer/LGBT Studies, Women’s Studies and the other scholars identified by ACTA for whom ‘the status quo, which is patriarchal, racist, hegemonic, and capitalist, must be “interrogated” and “critiqued” as a means of theorizing and facilitating a social transformation.'"

...the response:

"Men can't have babies. Period. Gynocidal men, coveting wombs and despising natural limitations, give birth only to Death - with war, with industrial production, with capitalism - which is only the accumulation of dead things. Standing atop piles and piles of human corpses (not to mention other living beings like trees, animals, and once-fertile soil) they declare themselves the Kings of the world, when in reality they are as insane as caged and tormented monkeys."

CNews 2August06

Finally, Sir, to extend the compound metaphor above: What if it can be shown that person A was/is a serious scholar documenting not only the true dimensions and causes of the Nazi Holocaust, but, also, the true dimensions and causes of other genocides, including against Indigenous Peoples? And what if it can be shown that person B is part of a group of—in essence—"Holocaust Deniers", known not only for covering up the true dimensions and causes of the Nazi Holocaust, perhaps person B even had relations complicit in it, but, also, person B can be shown to have vested interests in continuing cover-up of other genocides. And, further, suppose it can be proved that person B and his group have long track records of using pretexts of concern for one thing to hide other interests and real agenda? In that case, the "police officer", UC Boulder Administration, would be acting as a "useful idiot" for some very nefarious forces with some very ugly agenda in addition to being complicit in genocide cover-up.

Think carefully about it Sir.

Yes, think about it, Sir...and then pray a cold compress will stop the intra-cranial bleeding.

...meanwhile, another TDS signatory, Peter N. Kirstein, reveals "Why I Sign Defend Professor Churchill Petitions" and cites another "critical thinker"—CU sociology professor Tom Mayer (another TDS signer, quelle surprise)—in his rationale. Interesting Note: Kirstein uses the English (vice US) spelling of the word "defence" throughout his apologia. How kewl is that?

As bizarre as these claims are, other posts on the site attracted my attention. It's rare when professors openly admit that ideological litmus tests are OK, but Shortell manages to do so, criticizing NCATE's decision to drop the requirement that Education Schools individually assess the "disposition" of each and every prospective public school teacher to "promote social justice." The deposed former sociology chairman complains that:

The usual suspects (NAS, FIRE, etc.) were making a lot of noise about how any consideration of a commitment to social justice among dispositional qualities would be unfair to conservatives, who, it seems, find the notion of social justice objectionable.

Perhaps the New York state legislature should decree that all professors should demonstrate a "disposition" to promote "social justice," including a recognition of how religion is critical for producing a just future. My guess is that Prof. Shortell would then be far less enthusiastic about ideological litmus tests for employment as an educator.