Ward Churchill and Plagiarism

[SportsFan68]

The question the juror asked (next to last paragraph below) is where I think the whole case will turn. Lots of students, and professors too, plagiarize. Would it even have come up if not for the World Trade Center essay? Is this a case of selective enforcement?

Fired Colorado Professor Is Cross-Examined in Lawsuit
Published: March 24, 2009

DENVER — A former University of Colorado professor spent nearly six hours defending his scholarly work on Tuesday during cross-examination in his lawsuit contending that he was fired for an essay he wrote about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

After spending much of Monday explaining his political opinions, the former professor, Ward L. Churchill, faced extensive cross-examination by the university’s lawyer, Patrick O’Rourke.

A faculty committee concluded that Mr. Churchill had plagiarized and fabricated sections of his work on the persecution of American Indians, leading to his dismissal in July 2007, the university says.

But Mr. Churchill maintains that he was forced out because of the controversial essay, in which he characterized workers in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns.”

In a back-and-forth that was intermittently cutting and congenial, Mr. O’Rourke delved into the details of Mr. Churchill’s work, much of which focused on the spread of smallpox among Americans Indians and assorted aspects of law affecting Indian country.

Mr. O’Rourke said Mr. Churchill’s admission that he had ghostwritten works for other scholars and occasionally cited them to support his own theories clearly violated academic standards, as the faculty committee had concluded.

“The only evidence we’ve heard from anyone other than you about this scholarly practice is from 20 people tenured at C.U., all of whom say this is wrong,” Mr. O’Rourke said.

Mr. Churchill said the practice violated no academic standard at the university. And he argued that it was acceptable for one scholar to ghostwrite for another and then cite that work in other writings as long as the second scholar embraced the original premise.

Mr. O’Rourke acknowledged that the university and Mr. Churchill had drawn extensive criticism over the essay, with Mr. Churchill facing “half a million” accusations and the university under enormous pressure to discipline him.

But even after firing Mr. Churchill, the university allowed him to continue lecturing when invited by students — proof, Mr. O’Rourke said, that his dismissal had nothing to do with limiting his First Amendment rights to free speech.

“The same university that fired you for speaking out is the same university that let you come back and talk on any subject that you wanted, whenever you were asked to,” Mr. O’Rourke said.

Mr. Churchill responded, “I don’t see how the point you’re making actually changes the situation at all.”

Mr. Churchill conceded that parts of an essay written by Prof. Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia on Indian fishing rights appeared without permission in a book he helped edit and write. But Mr. Churchill denied that he was responsible for lifting any part of the essay, which he had worked on with Ms. Cohen.

When asked by his lawyer, David Lane, what he hoped to gain from his lawsuit, Mr. Churchill said: “I want my job back. I want the university to acknowledge that the entire process by which I was terminated from the university was fraudulent.”

Throughout the day, Mr. Churchill argued that he had done nothing wrong and that he had been railroaded by the university.

Mr. O’Rourke questioned that premise. “All of these fully tenured faculty members went along with a fraudulent and fictional report just to get you out of the university?” he asked.

Mr. Churchill said he believed that outside influences had helped seal his fate. “It’s just wrong,” he said.

Mr. O’Rourke responded, “It’s just wrong to put somebody else’s name on your work and then to cite it.”

After Mr. Churchill’s testimony, a juror submitted a question, asking him if the accusations of academic misconduct would have arisen had it not been for his essay.

“I think the easy answer on that one is no, they would not,” Mr. Churchill replied.

[SportsFan68]

Here's the attribution, I hasten to add:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/25 ... tml?ref=us

[TheCalvinator24]

Here's the attribution, I hasten to add:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/25 ... tml?ref=us

Made me laugh.

[silverscreenselect]

Mr. O’Rourke said Mr. Churchill’s admission that he had ghostwritten works for other scholars and occasionally cited them to support his own theories clearly violated academic standards, as the faculty committee had concluded.

“The only evidence we’ve heard from anyone other than you about this scholarly practice is from 20 people tenured at C.U., all of whom say this is wrong,” Mr. O’Rourke said.

Mr. Churchill said the practice violated no academic standard at the university. And he argued that it was acceptable for one scholar to ghostwrite for another and then cite that work in other writings as long as the second scholar embraced the original premise.

Let me get this straight. Twenty people testified that what Churchill did violated accepted academic standards and no one other that Churchill testified that what he did was an "acceptable" practice. Seems to me he has a big problem here.

He's probably right that if he had written a typical paper on some boring subject that nobody ever read, then no one would have bothered to follow up on his claims to see if there was some basis for them. But it's a funny thing that the more outrageous and outlandish claims you make, the more people seem to want to check up on them to verify if there's any validity to them and whether anyone else in the field is saying the same thing.

[SportsFan68]

Mr. O’Rourke said Mr. Churchill’s admission that he had ghostwritten works for other scholars and occasionally cited them to support his own theories clearly violated academic standards, as the faculty committee had concluded.

“The only evidence we’ve heard from anyone other than you about this scholarly practice is from 20 people tenured at C.U., all of whom say this is wrong,” Mr. O’Rourke said.

Mr. Churchill said the practice violated no academic standard at the university. And he argued that it was acceptable for one scholar to ghostwrite for another and then cite that work in other writings as long as the second scholar embraced the original premise.

Let me get this straight. Twenty people testified that what Churchill did violated accepted academic standards and no one other that Churchill testified that what he did was an "acceptable" practice. Seems to me he has a big problem here.

He's probably right that if he had written a typical paper on some boring subject that nobody ever read, then no one would have bothered to follow up on his claims to see if there was some basis for them. But it's a funny thing that the more outrageous and outlandish claims you make, the more people seem to want to check up on them to verify if there's any validity to them and whether anyone else in the field is saying the same thing.

I agree he has a big problem. If I were on that jury, he'd either lose completely or it would be a hung jury.

"Everybody else is doing it!" Don't you have to quit using that one when your age hits two digits?

[Ritterskoop]

The point of citing other people is to strengthen your position. If you are only citing your own work under other peoples' names, it weakens it. It means you couldn't find actual other people to cite.

[flockofseagulls104]

Selective enforcement?

Do you think if he had made a slur like that against some 'protected' group he would even get a trial in court? Do you think the issue of plagiarism would have even come up?

[Thousandaire]

Wait, he plagiarized himself?

He should be fired for stupidity (don't get me started on the stupidity of his politics).

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Wait, he plagiarized himself?

He should be fired for stupidity (don't get me started on the stupidity of his politics).

First time I've heard that since John Fogerty.

[wintergreen48]

The question the juror asked (next to last paragraph below) is where I think the whole case will turn. Lots of students, and professors too, plagiarize. Would it even have come up if not for the World Trade Center essay? Is this a case of selective enforcement?

Fired Colorado Professor Is Cross-Examined in Lawsuit
Published: March 24, 2009

..........

After Mr. Churchill’s testimony, a juror submitted a question, asking him if the accusations of academic misconduct would have arisen had it not been for his essay.

“I think the easy answer on that one is no, they would not,” Mr. Churchill replied.

Actually, the accusations of academic misconduct against Churchill apparently extend back as far as the early '90's, but the University just never bothered to act on them (the Usual Suspects on one side would likely argue that he was insulated from adverse action by the University due to his-- false-- claims to be an American Indian and an enrolled member of a tribe, etc., which gave him 'diversity' cover; the Usual Suspects on the other side would argue that there was simply never any merit to the accusations, although they do not seem to be arguing it very strongly now).

Another point to consider is that Churchill would probably never have gotten into the position he was in the first place (head of a department at a major university, tenured full professor, etc.) but for the notoriety he had earned from his whack publications: I don't believe that he has any of the usual academic credentials (as far as I know, he never earned a real PhD, anywhere, in any subject), his published 'work' generally appears in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed journals, etc., so that it is hard to see just how it was that he ever managed to get hired in the first place, much less achieve the 'academic prominence that he held. I think that a lot of universities keep some token whack job around for his entertainment value (well, they probably say that it demonstrates their commitment to the airing of alternative viewpoints, or something); with Churchill gone (assuming that the trial does not result in his getting his job back), I guess UCol has a spot open for an aspiring whack job.

To my mind, Churchill is to academia what Limbaugh is to journalism (even to the point of deliberately expressing himself in the most offensive way possible, just to get attention), but unlike Limbaugh, Churchill's ratings are down and he is now paying the price.

[Rexer25]

...

I think that a lot of universities keep some token whack job around for his entertainment value (well, they probably say that it demonstrates their commitment to the airing of alternative viewpoints, or something); with Churchill gone (assuming that the trial does not result in his getting his job back), I guess UCol has a spot open for an aspiring whack job.

...

Beebs! You dig the mountains? There may be a "special" job, just for you!

[silvercamaro]

Wintergreen is exactly correct. Churchill has been a fraud and a self-serving con man at every stage of his so-called "career."

His only proven connection to "Native American heritage" is some kind of honorary membership presented to him by the chief of, IIRC, some non-recognized tribe.

[ulysses5019]

...

I think that a lot of universities keep some token whack job around for his entertainment value (well, they probably say that it demonstrates their commitment to the airing of alternative viewpoints, or something); with Churchill gone (assuming that the trial does not result in his getting his job back), I guess UCol has a spot open for an aspiring whack job.

...

Beebs! You dig the mountains? There may be a "special" job, just for you!

I think she is overqualified. I think minime and her other personalities should apply.

[SportsFan68]

It's my understanding that he was hired originally because of his claimed Native American ancestry, and yes, because whatever he spewed forth generated controversy. CU probably needed to get some of the heat off the athletic department at the time . . .

Kidding! I don't know if the timelines intersect.


Anyway, I think we should bounce him all the way back to Elmwood.

[Bob Juch]

Wintergreen is exactly correct. Churchill has been a fraud and a self-serving con man at every stage of his so-called "career."

His only proven connection to "Native American heritage" is some kind of honorary membership presented to him by the chief of, IIRC, some non-recognized tribe.

He lied about the nature of his Vietnam service as well: He falsely claimed to have been a member of a long-range patrol group.