Genociding Ward Churchill for over a 20th of a century

CNews 31May07

Those anonymously fungis over at wardchurchill.net have posted a pdf of (ostensibly) the second complaint against CU's investigative subcommittee (ht (who else) Leah). The new complaint levels five new (but suspiciously familiar) charges, including:

1. The Committee misrepresented and suppressed evidence concerning smallpox among the Wampanoags in New England, 1614-1618.
2. The Committee misrepresented and suppressed evidence concerning Smith and the deliberate infection of the Wampanoags.
3. The Committee misrepresented and suppressed evidence concerning the 1837 smallpox epidemic among the Mandan/Hidatsa/Arikara and the withholding of vaccine.
4. The Committee misrepresented and suppressed evidence concerning the role of the military in the 1837 smallpox epidemic, and denied access to its sources.
5. In asserting that Professor Churchill “disrespected” American Indian oral tradition, the Committee misrepresented, distorted, and suppressed evidence and exceeded its mandate to conduct a nonadversarial, fact-finding investigation.
   

...having just discovered in our own possession many of the texts these new complainants use to support their arguments, we'll take a look at each new charge tomorrow, and, as usual, keep you posted.

Like many debates, the political dispute about Churchill centers on a few info-McNuggets but spins far beyond the realm of verifiable truth. Some conservatives see Churchill as emblematic of rampant left-wing orthodoxy in academe. Some leftists, meanwhile, spin the entire affair into a vast, right-wing conspiracy to silence those who "speak truth to power."

The heart of the issue, however, is academic. Its resolution should be empirical. Did Churchill, in 15 specific instances, commit research misconduct? As Brown notes, more than 25 professors who have formally investigated the allegations against Churchill and conducted hearings on the matter unanimously agree on two things:

First, that Churchill engaged in intentional and repeated research misconduct. Second, that the misconduct requires a severe sanction. People of good will can and do disagree on the appropriate response. The conspiracy theorists of both extremes only muddy the discourse and confuse the populace. It is sad and unfortunate that many will not rigorously address the underlying issue, which is one professor's academic deceit.

The range of commentary following the Churchill article today emphasizes, beyond any ‘reasoned’ facade, that the entire process initiated following the ‘outing’ of Churchill and cancellation of his speaking engagement ‘back when’ is politically motivated, aimed at homogenizing imperial discourse, and chilling dissent and academic freedom. Bottom line, one either supports free and open discourse or one does not—committees, politicians, ‘professional organizations’, ‘academics’ notwithstanding.

In suppressing it in the academic setting, the Board of Regents/President/compliant committees/AAUP et. al. are relocating it to other cultural, social and political arenas.

(Note, for instance, the broad mobilizations of ‘immigrants’ last year.) We are increasingly becoming two nations- a nation of immigrants, and a nation of ignorance.

You, who read this now, will feel the consequences of both the suppression of free and open discourse and the polarization of the population somewhere along the line.

CNews 30May07

The counter-complaint was signed by James M. Craven, an economics professor at Clark College in Vancouver, Wash.; Ruth Hsu, an associate professor of English, David E. Stannard, a professor of American studies, and Haunani-Kay Trask, professor of Hawaiian studies, all at the University of Hawaii; Michael Yellow Bird, associate professor of indigenous nations studies at the University of Kansas; Jennifer Harbury, an attorney in Weslaco, Texas; and Sharon H. Venne, an attorney in Edmonton, Alberta.

They are accusing the investigative panel of misrepresenting, falsifying, fabricating and suppressing evidence. They said the panel exceeded its mandate in concluding that Churchill was disrespectful to American Indians.

They said the panel's investigation chilled academic freedom for people who challenge orthodox views and hampered research into "the real nature and effects" of Indian policies in North America.

The Camera article does not quote extensively from this new complaint, nor does it link to a copy of it, but judging from the list of signatories, we're going to guess that it contains nothing new, and comprises the same specious charges the previous counter-complaint did, leading us to suspect that the true purpose of this latest move by Ward Churchill's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion is merely an obfuscatory tactic designed to distract and confuse the public (aka potential jury pool).

* Leah pointed us to virtually all of today's links, saving us mucho wear & tear on our google. Our thanks, Leah!

Margaret LeCompte, a professor of education at Boulder and president of the AAUP chapter there, said that the move to fire Churchill is “an opening wedge in the concerted effort to curb academic freedom and tenure.”

LeCompte acknowledged that faculty members evaluated Churchill’s work and that Brown had relied on professors’ reviews of the evidence. But she said that this left a false impression. “You can have a committee that looks like the right thing but is an absolute corruption of the process,” she said. Anyone “who might have been the least bit sympathetic to Churchill” was kept out of the process, LeCompte said, while those on the panels faced “extraordinary pressure” to find justifications to get rid of Churchill.

Because Churchill wrote about history, she said, the committees should have accepted the idea that different scholars may have different interpretations. “This was not a point of fact like it might be in chemistry or biology,” she said. While there is “probably a chance that there are one or two footnotes out of place” in Churchill’s work, a truly dispassionate review would have found no misconduct, she said. In the “toxic environment” that prevailed at Boulder, there was no way a panel could have cleared Churchill, and that makes the investigations illegitimate, she said.

...BTW: The IHE comments section is particularly lively, and we recommend reading it in full.
Update: MJB leaves a comment to the article that is so concise we just have to post it here in full

So who hired Ward Churchill? According to an article in the Brown Daily Herald of April 25, 2005, the person who takes credit for hiring Ward Churchill is Evelyn Hu-DeHart, who was head of CU’s Center for Studies of Ethnicity and Race in America from 1988 to 2002, when she moved to Brown, where she is also engaged in Ethnic Studies.

The fact that a number of posters and Churchill supporters quoted for this article claim to be ethnic studies professors who use his work and find it acceptable, and the professor who hired him found him acceptable says that there are serious problems in academia. Mr. Churchill had none of the qualifications for hiring in a tenure track position at a research university. In fact, his initial appointment was in communications, the field he actually has some academic training in. But, lacking a doctorate, he wasn’t tenure track material. No problem, Hu-DeHart liked his radical talk, and his claim to be an Indian, so he was moved to a tenure track slot in Ethnic Studies, and promptly tenured and promoted. Presumably this was based on his publication record, though again, none of it measures up to what most academics consider peer reviewed publications to be — most of his books are from fringe vanity publishers, not academic presses.

The level of academic failure was evident for all to see — all who actually looked. John LaVelle (who is an actual enrolled tribal member, unlike Mr. Churchill) took Churhill’s misuse of historical facts apart, including the tired old smallpox blanket tale. The fact that so many members of ethnic studies departments do not want to do history, but want to write polemics supporting radical political movements suggests that there are serious reasons for reform at many universities. For any of the defenders of Churchill, all I can say is, read the investigative report, read LaVelle, and check the documents. I did. Churchill is an academic disgrace. President Brown is the one of the few vertebrates on the CU campus. Firing Ward Churchill for his lies and academic dishonesty is long overdue. He has received due process. Now it is time to take him off the state payroll. He is free to say anything he wants, but not at taxpayer expense. For the final time, he is being fired for academic misconduct, not his stupid and insensitive remarks.

CNews 29May07

• Inside Higher Education
• Denver Post
• Rocky Mountain News
• Fox News
• NPR

CNews 28May07

University of Colorado President Hank Brown has recommended in a report addressed to the CU Board of Regents that embattled ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill be dismissed from the faculty.

In the 10-page confidential report, which is addressed to Board of Regents Chair Patricia Hayes, Brown states that it is "my determination that Professor Churchill should be dismissed for cause as a result of his misconduct."

The report, dated Friday, includes a number of reasons why Brown believes the controversial professor should be sacked.

Chief among them is "conduct which falls below the minimum standards of professional integrity."

The president said in an interview late Sunday that his report, which has not been officially released, must still go back to the Privilege and Tenure Committee at CU for a last review before being sent back to him for final approval."

It is a draft of my thinking that is for the review of the Privilege and Tenure Committee," Brown said. "If they wish, they can make additional comments to me and then I'll take action."

That could take another 15 days.

Update: Drunkablog takes a look at the Denver Post's story on this, turning up our favorite Churchill quote of the day: "A random group of homeless people under a bridge would be far more intellectually sound and principled than anything I've encountered at the university so far." Well, he would know. Incidentally, the DP article says Churchill plans to write as many as three books "defending his research." Our question is: Under which names?

Update II: Those anonymous wackos over at wardchurchill.net have a pdf containing what they claim is Ward Churchill's response to CU President Hank Brown's decision to proceed with canning him.
Excerpt:

Everyone agrees that this “investigation” would not have occurred but for my First Amendment-protected speech. To use minor factual disagreements, citation of ghostwritten material, and editors’ errors as the pretext for firing me simply illustrates that the administrators of the University of Colorado take political and financial pressures far more seriously than academic freedom or the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of speech, equal protection and due process.

CNews 27May07

CNews 26May07

"As far as I'm concerned, that's what [CU President Hank Brown] was hired to do," Churchill said. "I'm sure he had some other (responsibilities) to do, but I would expect this to be very nearly at the top. . . . He's basically the hatchet man."

CNews 25May07

You needn't be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the leaker was likely a faculty member sympathetic to Churchill, or his attorney, David Lane. Since the Post has, itself, been sympathetic to Churchill while the Rocky Mountain News has been far more critical, it's not surprising the Post was awarded the local scoop.

CNews 24May07

In his May 7 letter [to the AAUP, CU Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research Michael] Poliakoff outlined the opportunities that Churchill and his witnesses had to question the investigative report during Churchill's dismissal hearing in January. "Consequently, the University of Colorado respectfully declines to withdraw the investigative committee's report," he wrote. "The hearing before a panel of the Faculty Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure is the appropriate forum for Professor Churchill to present any witnesses or evidence on his behalf. Allowing outside requests to influence the University of Colorado's handling of Professor Churchill's case would be contrary to the Faculty Senate's clear intent when it adopted processes applicable to all faculty members."

CNews 23May07

CNews 22May07

According to the AP, the Privilege and Tenure Committee found that Churchill "committed multiple acts of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification." Churchill's conduct, it said, "requires severe sanctions."

Churchill's antics could have been worse, the panel intoned. For instance, he might have lied to obtain grant money or endangered people's lives by ignoring research standards. Churchill "shows misbehavior, but not the worst possible misbehavior." Indeed.

But heaven help us if that's the standard for lifetime employment at the state's premier university.

Looks like Ward Churchill doppelganger "Charley Arthur" is convinced that accusing others of plagiarism somehow mitigates Churchill's own academic sins.
Update: We have to wonder—if "Charley Arthur" is right and Circe Sturm did plagiarize Churchill's bogus Dawes Act assertions and publish them as her own (and it certainly appears that way)—just who the hell is running things in Ethnic Studies? And why are we starting to get a mental image of those elaborate domino set-ups shown as human-interest stories on the evening news?
Update II: Don't neglect to read the updates, in which "Charley Arthur" claims Churchill is even now making a formal complaint against Circe Sturm for plagiarizing him; that the CU 7+2 have even more quotes to support Churchill's interpretation of the Dawes Act; and that additional charges of "research misconduct" will soon be filed against the investigating subcommittee. Like PB reader Laurie (who comments on the post), we can't wait.

CNews 21May07

In Churchill's case, the "multiple acts of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification" are compounded by a total, arrogant state of denial; he does not even consider what he did to be wrong, much less pledge to reform his ways. His behavior is likely to continue, in other words, if he returns to his old haunts.

Unfortunately, the vote of the Privilege and Tenure Committee is not the first indication that some professors, and perhaps many, would raise the bar of tenured job security so high as to shield them from any meaningful accountability.

Even the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, which thankfully voted last year in favor of firing Churchill, included three dissenting votes of nine cast. And those dissents occurred despite the fact that the committee concluded Churchhill had engaged in a "pattern of repeated, intentional misrepresentation."

The lengths to which some at the University of Colorado will go to protect a proven academic fraud is astonishing. Even Churchill's defenders are stuck with the lame argument that, "well, he could have been worse."

It's hard to imagine how.

CNews 18May07

A faculty group defending the accuracy of works by embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill misrepresented sources or relied on books the authors themselves have since repudiated.

"That's just blatant distortion to make their point," said Russell Thornton, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, whose book was quoted in defense of Churchill.

University of Oklahoma professor Circes Sturm, who was also quoted, said she has since changed her views on a piece of federal Indian law Churchill is accused of distorting. Churchill was among her sources.

"If I had known that there were questions about the accuracy of his work, I would have looked to other sources," said Sturm, who is quoted by Churchill's defenders.

Sturm's sources included essays by M. Annette Jaimes, Churchill's first wife [actually, his second. —ed.]. Churchill has admitted ghostwriting some of Jaimes' essays - a fact Sturm couldn't have known at the time.

"What a tangled web," Sturm said. "I wish I wasn't in it."

One of those sources was Thornton, the UCLA professor whose book American Indian Holocaust and Survival covers the epidemic. The book concludes that smallpox was spread to the Mandan tribe by travelers on a steamship, not by the U.S. Army.

However, Cheyfitz and the professors working with him accused the investigative committee of ignoring a part of Thornton's book that includes the deathbed "speech" of Four Bears, a Mandan leader.

In it, Four Bears spoke of his impending death from smallpox "caused by those dogs, the whites."

But the speech doesn't mention the Army or the distribution of blankets.

"My reaction to this stuff about the speech of Four Bears is it's a bunch of BS," Thornton said.

"All it (the speech) says is that white men brought smallpox to Indians," Thornton said. "Well, so what? That's nothing. That's my view, anyway."

Thornton's rebuke didn't faze Cheyfitz.

"He ought to read the speech again," Cheyfitz said. "I mean, it's quite clear what the speech says - it says whites spread smallpox. And although it doesn't say the Army spread smallpox, we can assume, I think - safely assume - that amongst those white people that Four Bears was referencing in that speech he certainly had the Army in mind as part of it, since the Indians' major interaction with white people was with the Army."

My Friends one and all, Listen to what I have to say—

Ever since I can remember, I have loved the Whites, I have lived With them ever since I was a Boy, and to the best of my Knowledge, I have never Wronged a White Man, on the Contrary, I have always Protected them from the insults of Others, Which they cannot deny. The 4 Bears never saw a White Man hungry, but what he gave him to eat, Drink, and a Buffaloe skin to sleep on, in time of Need. I was always ready to die for them, Which they cannot deny. I have done every thing that a red Skin could do for them, and how have they repaid it! With ingratitude! I have Never Called a White Man a Dog, but to day, I do Pronounce them to be a set of Black harted Dogs, they have deceived Me, them that I always considered as Brothers, has turned Out to be My Worst enemies. I have been in Many Battles, and often Wounded, but the Wounds of My enemies I exhalt in, but to day I am Wounded, and by Whom, by those same White Dogs that I have always Considered, and treated as Brothers. I do not fear Death my friends. You Know it, but to die with my face rotten, that even the Wolves will shrink with horror at seeing Me, and say to themselves, that is the 4 Bears the Friend of the Whites—

Listen well what I have to say, as it will be the last time you will hear Me. think of your Wives, Children, Brothers, Sisters, Friends, and in fact all that you hold dear, are all Dead, or Dying, with their faces all rotten, caused by those dogs the whites, think of all that My friends, and rise all together and Not leave one of them alive. The 4 Bears will act his Part—.

CNews 17May07

Tribal citizenship has been recognized by the tribes since time immemorial, but certainly since 1934 and even before, and formalized ways to identify tribal citizens have been based in codified tribal law. Think what you want about the system. It exists and awards a political standard to those who qualify. It is possible that CU may not have even asked for credentials at all. The academic dilemma brought about by the Churchill case has underscored the fact that universities have been lending their supposed credibility to such fraudulent behaviors in violation of the law.

This may be the perfect moment for Indian Studies scholars throughout the country to demand that American universities stand by the side of the indigenous populations of this country in defense of First Nation citizenship. The defense of citizenship is one of the most important functions of any sovereign nation. But make no mistake. If we choose to defend tribal-nation citizenship rights at American universities, we will have a fight on our hands. The truth is, there is a powerful stream of thought in our society that persists in believing that American Indians are just some kind of romantic and savage and doomed race condemned to vanish without citizenship rights, neither American nor tribal, without land and Native legacy. This thinking has been at the heart of the Churchill dilemma; and Churchill himself, while claiming a position of advocacy historian to Natives, has been blindly influential in shaping this absurd notion.

The report, obtained Wednesday by The Denver Post, says that Churchill engaged in research misconduct. But it recommends that Churchill be suspended without pay for one year and his rank reduced to associate professor, a move that could reduce his annual salary by more than $20,000.

CNews 16May07

Three of the committee's five members recommended suspension, according to a copy of the committee report provided to The Associated Press on Wednesday. The other two members said he should be fired.

Churchill's work was "below minimum standards of professional integrity and ... requires severe sanctions," the committee concluded. It said Churchill "committed multiple acts of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification."

In a list of arguments against dismissal, it said his case "shows misbehavior, but not the worst possible misbehavior."

The committee said he did not fabricate data to obtain grant money, did not endanger people's lives by ignoring research standards and did not damage the progress of important research.

The attorney for University of Colorado ethnic-studies professor Ward Churchill said Tuesday that the committee reviewing his academic misconduct case has recommended a one-year suspension rather than dismissal.

We feel any discipline is not warranted, but at least (the committee members are) moving in the right direction," said Churchill attorney David Lane. "This will make it more difficult for Hank Brown and the regents to fire him."

Dear editor,

I would like to suggest that you should inform your journalists to at least attempt some basic research behind a story they are covering in your paper. The story on Ward Churchill by Philip Paul-Martin , May 1st /07, displayed a lack of knowledge by the writer on the history and identity of Ward Churchill. Had the writer ‘’Googled’’ Ward Churchill he would have found Mr. Churchill is a white person appropriating an ‘’Indian identity’’ for political ,economic and academic purposes. Had Mr Paul-Martin known this he may have taken Mr, Churchill to task on his liberal usage of the adjective ‘’our’’ in laying claim to a history not his own thereby cheapening that history for career and professional adavancement. Ward Churchill’s scholarship is factual on many levels but his ‘’identity theft’’ as an Aboriginal person only serves to place that scholarship and real history in serious doubt in the minds of the general population.
Megwetch.

Craig Fontaine- Sagkeeng First Nation

In theory, it would take only one such [malaria] carrier to arrive at Jamestown and get bitten by one of the mosquito species that inhabit the East Coast to establish malaria in the entire continent. In this way, one or more colonists must have "infected" the New World's mosquitoes with the parasite for malaria. "It's a bit like throwing darts," said Andrew Spielman, the late Harvard professor of tropical public health. "Bring enough sick people in contact with enough mosquitoes, and sooner or later you'll hit the bull's eye—you'll establish malaria. (pp. 52-53)

CNews 15May07

CNews 13May07

Looks like Ward Churchill's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion has decided it's time to off the little piggies. The CU Seven (Plus Two) appear to have filed formal research misconduct charges against the investigating subcommittee at CU that found Churchill guilty of numerous instances of research misconduct, plagiarism, and historical fraud. (big ht to Leah) Since even two bloggers and a New Jersey cop were able to see through the CU Seven's specious charges, we don't expect this to affect CU President Hank Brown's decision whether to terminate Churchill or have him over for tea, but it will no doubt muddy the waters among hoi polloi and among useful idiots (or halt the Churchill termination process, which the CU Seven explicitly observe in their filing), which is probably exactly what the DBAB wants.
Here's a synopsis of the main charges against the subcommittee:

• relying on a biased and flawed source for major arguments;
• improper exclusion of reputable independent sources that contradict the Report’s argument;
• suppressing text from a cited source that contradicts the Report’s argument;
• excluding valid scholarly interpretations at variance with the Reports claims;
• rhetorically exaggerating the strength of the case against Professor Churchill.

...amazing (and of course purely coincidental) how these charges are suspiciously similar to those levied against The Perfesser.

CNews 12May07

CNews 11May07

Churchill's attorney, David Lane, said if Churchill is dismissed he will sue CU on the premise the university is retaliating against Churchill's exercise of the First Amendment.

“I expect they will vote to fire Professor Churchill and we will finally be free to go to a real court and be out of the kangaroo process,” Lane said.

CNews 10May07

Churchill told S&GR that the report is a "mixed bag" because even though it contains errors, the majority of the P&T panel members have recommended something "other than termination."

CNews 9May07

However dark the day, we can always count on CounterPunch to blacken it further. Today, CounterPunch offers up a dark, tarry stool of an essay by Stephen Lendman, which touches (briefly and in a bombastic manner entirely unacquainted with accuracy) on the Ward Churchill burlesque, and the reading of which is—to once again steal from Maddox—"like being bukkaked with stupid."
Excerpt:

The (Professor) Ward Churchill Solidarity Network web site defends the academic freedom and right of free expression for one of the nation's most courageous advocates of those rights and much more for his own Native Indian peoples and all others. Churchill was viciously and unjustifiably attacked for his essay analyzing the 9/11 attacks he later included in his important 2003 book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. It detailed the stunning history of US military interventions since 1776 at home and abroad, the fact that this nation has been at war every year since inception (without exception) to the present day with one or more adversaries as well as our post-WW II obstruction, subversion and violation of constitutional and international law proving this country is and always was arrogant and lawless.

For his public stance on this and other injustices, Churchill receives a steady stream of death threats, and his home has been vandalized. He's also been viciously vilified in the corporate media and by University of Colorado (CU) officials (taking orders from the state's governor) who announced June 26, 2006 Churchill would be fired even though he's a distinguished award-winning tenured professor of ethnic studies guilty of no misconduct. His case continues so far unresolved while he remains suspended on pay from academic duties but backed in his struggle by CU students, noted academic members of "teachers for a democratic society," and many other supporters speaking out publicly in his behalf.

The chair of the university system's privilege and tenure committee, which held a hearing on the case in January, declined to discuss the contents of its confidential report.

"It has indeed gone forward," said Weldon Lodwick, a professor of mathematics at CU-Denver. "We have deliberated on this very carefully."

Churchill and his attorney did not return calls for comment.

If Brown decides there are grounds to dismiss Churchill, the case then goes to the Board of Regents, which will make the final decision. Churchill would have at least 20 business days to respond and can request a public hearing before the regents, [CU system spokeswoman Michele] McKinney said.

If Brown decides there are no grounds for dismissal, the case will be closed and Churchill will return to the classroom, McKinney said.

McKinney characterized as "false" a posting Tuesday on an anti-Churchill blog, Pirate Ballerina, that the university would offer to buy out Churchill for at least $3 million.

...and here's the CNews 9Mar05 (sixth item) post they appear to be talking about. For the DP reporters (who, we're guessing, recently "moved up" from WorldNetDaily): the "9" is for "the ninth", the "Mar" is short for "March", and the "05"—now please pay attention because this part can be tricky—is for two frigging years ago. BTW: March 9, 2005 was a Wednesday. A Wednesday that (according to a rare and specialized document we keep on hand to settle such disputes; it's called a "calendar") occurred two frigging years ago.

CNews 8May07

Drunkablog spots an AP news story that claims a decision on the Ward Churchill termination could be forthcoming from CU President Hank Brown (who apparently just received the P&T committee's report today) in as few as three weeks. The article is positively optimistic, noting that Churchill says he has "a right to return."

THURSDAY
SPECIAL EVENT I
Stop the War! Rally –
12-1pm at the Flagpoles
Speaker – Professor Ward Churchill
SPECIAL EVENT II
Manifest Destiny and the American Holocaust –
8pm at Crystal Cove Auditorium
Speaker – Professor Ward Churchill

May 1, 2007
Dear Friends,

A few weeks ago the new director of my program at CU—The Sewall Residential Academic Program—confirmed that she would not be renewing my contract at CU. So I have been fired. The process that was begun two years ago is now complete. At that time I alleged my firing was motivated by hostility toward me as a political and religious conservative. I am certain this is still the motive

In the past year the History Department at CU sent two professors into my classroom who gave me negative teaching reviews. Then the new director of the Sewall program did the same. It was as though they working off the same template. These negative evaluations were sent to the Dean of Arts and Sciences as justification for my firing, in spite of the following:

• My student evaluations are among the highest in the history of the university and are the highest in my department.

• I have won almost every teaching award one can win at CU, some of them many times.

• I have won more teaching awards than all the other professors in my program combined.

• I have won more teaching awards than all my critics combined.

• The last senior member of the History Department to evaluate my class—last February—opened his summary with, "It was a treat to be there and watch a master teacher at work."

• My peer evaluations have ranged from very good to outstanding for twenty-three years.

• One history professor recommended I be retained to teach the other professors how to teach.

My firing is blatant act of political and religious discrimination. It shows nothing but contempt for the students of the University of Colorado. Apparently student feelings mean nothing.

If you would like to write emails or letters on my behalf I recommend the following addresses:

• Bud.Peterson@colorado.edu; Chancellor of CU, Boulder

• Gleeson@colorado.edu; Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

• Phil.Distefano@Colorado.EDU; Executive Vice Chancellor, CU, Boulder

It would be fine with me if you sent me copies of your correspondence. Thank you for your support and prayers.

Phil Mitchell

micaiahministries@comcast.net

CNews 7May07

CNews 3May07

I never developed [the idea that the Mandan smallpox epidemic was conscious genicode] in any depth, it is self-evident that it happened by what my people have told me. I put a couple citations behind it for people to look at and draw their own conclusions, the citations don’t say what I said, which is not unusual but in this case this is considered fraud. I never considered an in-depth treatment of it, but I am now. And guess what? Not only what I said was true but it was far worse than what I said. They should have left it alone. It turns out there was an actual war department policy, not a couple of lonely officers at an outpost that could be an anomaly.

Ah, so it only appeared that Churchill was misrepresenting history by citing facts that seemed supportive of his genocide argument but when read in their original contexts contradicted it. All this time, he was citing those contradictory facts to allow his few readers who bothered to read the original texts to make up their own minds. How fiendishly clever! Funny he's never mentioned (or made use of) this broadminded (albeit obtuse) approach until now.

CNews 2May07

According to this website, Ward Churchill will be speaking at UC-Irvine Thursday, May 10th, as part of the Muslim Students Union's "Holocaust Memorial Week", co-sponsored by Students for Peace & Justice and the Worker-Student Alliance. The Perfesser's speech, "Manifest Destiny and the American Holocaust", is co-sponsored by MEChA.

"Your [sic] going to have to suck it up and do whatever it is that you need to do in order to retaliate for what is being done in the world today, take up the gun if you want to. The point of the matter is, it has got to get done. You can start out there by showing solidarity to people in armed resistance to what is being done to them in the name of U.S. policy and aggression. You can take it right back home and do it here."

Better to let ten sloppy and reckless academics keep their jobs than have one academic cowed into silence for fear that, if he/she makes controversial statements that offend enough people, he/she will be targeted for dismissal.