I’m referring, of course, to the newly notorious University of Colorado professor,Ward Churchill, who has compared American 9/11 victims to “little Eichmanns.” Today Drudge points to a fascinating article in the Rocky Mountain News presenting evidence that, contrary to his claim to be a member of the United Keetoowah Band Cherokee tribe of Oklahoma, Churchill in fact has no Indian background.
“He’s not in the database at all and is not a member of the Keetoowah,” said Georgia Mauldin, the tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla.
In his books and articles, Churchill has described himself as a member of the Keetoowah Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma. In past interviews, he’s claimed to be one-sixteenth Cherokee.
But the Keetoowah say that’s not true.
….
“For so long it was whispered on campus that he really isn’t an Indian,” said Jodi Rave, who studied journalism at CU. “Here you had the director of the Indian studies program and he’s not an Indian.”
Rave is a Mandan-Hidatsa Indian originally from North Dakota. Today, she is a reporter and columnist with the Missoulian newspaper in Missoula, Mont. She was recently a fellow in the prestigious Nieman program for journalists at Harvard University.
In one of her journalism classes at CU, Rave was assigned to write a profile, and she decided to profile Churchill.
“To have somebody of that stature masquerading as an Indian was intriguing to me,” Rave said. “On two separate days I asked him questions. I was up-front in asking him questions (about his background).”
Rave says she discovered that Churchill had enrolled in the Keetoowah tribe under a program initiated by a former tribal chairman that let almost anyone sign up. She says the Keetoowah later discontinued that program and disenrolled the people who had joined under it.
When her article came out, Rave says Churchill was furious and insisted that he did have American Indian lineage.
“He called me and said, ‘Jodi Rave, this is your professor and I need to talk to you right away.’ He was surprised I had a story published that called into question his identity.”
He also defended his American Indian background and said her story was unfair.
Rave said she was enrolled in one of Churchill’s classes when the article came out, and her grade went from an A to a C-minus.
Nice guy.
Apparently there is an effort underway in Colorado to fire Churchill because of his outrageous comments, and there is a corresponding movement to defend him on academic freedom grounds. (See InstaPundit’s take here, with some links.) I’m sympathetic to the academic freedom arguments, but what if Churchill has in fact lied about himself to and in the university, and punished students who pointed that out?
Moreover, what if part of Churchill’s success at CU has been based on the rage for “diversity,” that is, on Churchill’s assertion that he was an ethnic minority? Is this sort of ethnic fraud (if the accusations are true) any less punishable than companies falsely claiming they are minority-owned when they are not? Indeed, shouldn’t advocates of “diversity” be among the most outraged by impersonation of this sort?
Since “diversity” trumps the 14th Amendment’s equal protection, perhaps “faux diversity” trumps academic freedom protections.
UPDATE
Churchill’s Cherokee-ness is the same as … Bill Clinton’s.
The former chairman of the Keetoowah band of Cherokee Indians says University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill was given an honorary membership that required no proof of Cherokee heritage.
John Ross led the tribe for several years in the 1990s. He says the Keetoowah established an “associate member” program to recognize friends of the tribe.
“If somebody helped out in a certain way, to honor them they’d give them an associate membership,” Ross said Thursday. “There were 300 or 400 associate members.”
Former President Clinton also was given an honorary membership in the tribe.
….
Many non-Indians are now claiming Cherokee ancestry, said Richard Allen, a policy analyst with the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. The Keetoowah are a small offshoot of the much larger Cherokee Nation.
Allen has worked for the Cherokee Nation for more than 20 years. He said he has followed Churchill’s career for much of that time.
“When it comes to Churchill, I’ve always thought he was a wannabe Indian,” Allen said. “His history is a little bit like Forrest Gump.”
Thanks for bringing the article to my attention. I’m currently a philosophy student at Boulder and am sick to death of listening to what’s going on with this guy. The faculty here are gathering in the hallways, speaking in whispers, glancing around in paranoid fashion, talking about how their academic freedom is at risk. And while it seems obvious that some concern is warranted, I really wish such controversy could occur around a man more worthy of respect. Misrepresenting his race to get (and keep) a job is somewhat pathetic.
By the way, the abbreviation’s CU, not UC.
Aaron, thanks for your comment. Although I am not the blog owner, I’d like to invite you to stick around.
“Rave said she was enrolled in one of Churchill’s classes when the article came out, and her grade went from an A to a C-minus.” This alone ought to be investigated, and if it’s what it looks like, get him fired.
It is very convenient how the academic community has made academic freedom sacrosanct. It is nice to have carte blanche to be able to say anything you want. However, that clearly was not the purpose of academic freedom. It is suppose to protect a professor from being fired for his research, not his demented ranting. Would one argue that a physics professor must be allowed to say anything he wants about 9/11 or any other political issue because without that freedom he wouldn
I don’t mean to trivialize this controversy, but this guy sounds like the Jayson Blair of academia. Let’s say he lied about his ethnic background. Is CU willing to admit that, as you say, it was material to his hiring because of some diversity goal?
If this were another professional field, Churchill would be fired for unprofessional conduct in the performance of his duties. How, exactly, has Professor Churchill expanded mankind’s knowledge during his academic career?
“Is CU willing to admit that, as you say, it was material to his hiring because of some diversity goal?”
Wouldn’t be surprised.
“How, exactly, has Professor Churchill expanded mankind’s knowledge during his academic career?” Don’t know about mankind’s knowledge but he’s probably expanded a few people’s tantrum-throwing adolescence, not counting his own. People send their kids off to college to grow up.
As a student at UVa, let me just say that the statements made by this man are not an isolated incident. I’d call your attention to Julian Bond, a professor at UVa, who referred to conservatives as the “Taliban wing of the Republican Party.” These kind of absurd “scholarly” statements are nothing new.
I’d say this about the problem. A teacher has a right to say whatever they like outside of the classroom, just as every other citizen does. Therefore, I’d be inclined to say that if this essay and other related commentary were held to the private sphere and out of his classroom and role as a professor, then nothing should be done.
However, this clearly is not the case. Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, guest host John Gibson interviewed two of Churchill’s students, both defending him vigorously, partly with a call to academic freedom and free speech as is to be expected, but mostly defending his rhetoric describing America as the Great Satan as completely accurate. They of course added in the obligatory “Professor Churchill asks tough questions that make students think.”
I’ve seen this all too often, and I can say with reasonable certainty that Churchill does the exact opposite of making students think. If you’ve ever had the opportunity to sit in on a “studies” class (female, african-american, etc.) and talk to people majoring in these fields, then you’d likely come to the same conclusion that I have: that “making people think” is a sure sign of full fledged indoctrination.
Let me go one step further. Professor Churchill even has a right to express his views, however radical, in his class. However, he also has an ethical obligation to present other points of view on the subject besides his own, and to serve as an impartial mediator and referee during class discussions. Does he do that? Every indication I’ve read emphatically says no.
Like I said, Churchill is not something new. If we’re going to really solve this problem, it is time to ask if professors should not only have this ethical obligation to objectivity, but if they should also have a legal obligation as well.
These are my people, because I say so
Well, what do you know. Firebrand University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, who has made noises about how all those nasty European types should go home and leave the American…
We’ve linked this post at The Education Wonks (Haloscan trackback is being ##*!)in our post titled “Carnival of Education Info and Extra Credit Assignment.” It can be seen here:
http://educationwonk.blogspot.com/2005/02/carnival-of-education-info-and-extra.html
I’ve read that Churchill’s academic credentials are bogus. He somehow became head of a department without a PhD.
This raises the real possibility that he was hired because of his fondness for Mau-Mauing. He may well have been perceived as “authentically Indian” precisely because he espoused the loony leftist stance. He likes to pose with a machine gun, sort of in the style of the Black Panthers. For the doofus left, these revolutionary posturings are the stuff of their dreams.
Churchill is in that elite group which contains Ted Kennedy and Noam Chomsky. The worst criticism of them pales when one simply lets them speak.
‘”How, exactly, has Professor Churchill expanded mankind’s knowledge during his academic career?” ‘
I liked his book on Holocaust and denial in america. As well as his pamphlet “pacifism as a pathology.”
I looked at a couple of reviews of the pamphlet. It looks like he’s saying that MLK had the wrong idea and that the civil rights struggle in America ought to be more violent – correct me if I’m wrong, actus.
Well, that’s certainly a point of view.
‘It looks like he’s saying that MLK had the wrong idea and that the civil rights struggle in America ought to be more violent – correct me if I’m wrong, actus’
I don’t know if he said that it ought to be more violent, I think he says that we ought to recognize that the pacifism of MLK succeeded because there was a more violent strain of the struggle that it could set itself off against, and that in idolizing MLK we ignore how it succeeded.
From what I remember, he doesn’t argue that violence is more practical — I don’t think its a good idea to engage in armed struggle against the US — he just argues against the moral superiority of the pathology of pacifism.
Like I said. Good book. He goes to a peacenik convention and stirs up trouble by holding seminars on semi-auto rifle tactcis.
I read an alternative history story by Harry Turtledove, in which the Nazis invaded and occupied India. Ghandi tried his nonviolent tactics on them and was rewarded with an unceremonious bullet in the back of the head. Nonviolence only works when your opposition has a conscience.
‘Nonviolence only works when your opposition has a conscience.’
Also when you present yourself as an alternative to a more violent strain.
Did this alternative history book tell us what happened when Ghandi was killed? How many millions of hindus rose up against the Nazis? How many Hindu opportunists pointed to Nazi/Muslim cooperation and led the slaughter?
The story pretty much ended with Ghandi’s murder. But there wasn’t going to be an uprising. That was the point of taking him out. As soon as somebody appeared that any resistance could gather around, the Nazis would have taken care of him. You know that there were resistance groups thoughout Europe and Eastern Europe, and they slowed the Nazis down, but they never could have prevailed.
“Also when you present yourself as an alternative to a more violent strain.”
Oh, sure. Absolutely. But you know, the Indians, Hindu and Muslim, had some pretty severe uprisings against British colonial rule in the 19th century and they were squashed every time. The British hated like heck to lose the “jewel in the crown” but they couldn’t justify armed fighting against Gandhi’s people. He was really extraordinary, not just for his ideas but for his influence on other Indians making them a reality.
‘The story pretty much ended with Ghandi’s murder.’
Then its intellectually dishonest specially if its trying make parallels to the independence movement. Which had plenty of violent strains in it, and plenty of leader vying for the spotlight with Gandhi.
‘You know that there were resistance groups thoughout Europe and Eastern Europe, and they slowed the Nazis down, but they never could have prevailed.’
Give it a century, just like the British occupation.
Intellectually dishonest?
actus, it was fiction!
So you think Gandhi was unnecessary, that colonial rule would have ended about the same time anyway? Well, you could be right. There goes another hero.
I remember reading about MLK carefully explaining that “we don’t want to burn the cities down, because we will want to live in them afterward”. Now I can’t cite that, because I read it as a child, so you can rip it to pieces if you want.
‘actus, it was fiction!’
But yet we bring it up when discussing the real viability of non-violence. If its all fiction which doesn’t matter to this debate then fine. Leave it alone.
‘So you think Gandhi was unnecessary, that colonial rule would have ended about the same time anyway? ‘
There’s a difference between saying that Ghandi and King were necessary for change and saying they were sufficient for change. I don’t think they were the latter, and I don’t know enough to say they were the former. I do know that post war britain would be hard pressed to keep its empire, and that there was plenty of people wanting self-rule besides Ghandi.
I think Churchills book addressed that and offered thought provoking ideas for social change activists on the left to get off their moral and racist high horse when it came to global social change.
I don’t fully agree with the thesis but do agree that it is very challenging and thought provoking — and thus enjoyed the book. A good addition to the debate concerning ideological pacifism. Which was my point in bringing it up.
My point, actus, about it being fiction is that there isn’t a specific reality for it to conform to. It’s a thought-experiment. Because it doesn’t conform to YOUR worldview doesn’t make it irrelevant. Besides, I’ll bring up any damn thing I please, as will you. Let John tell me not to. It’s his blog.
“My point, actus, about it being fiction is that there isn’t a specific reality for it to conform to. It’s a thought-experiment.”
I know. It’s just a poor one because it stops its thinking just as things are getting interesting. Thats how its ‘dishonest’. Because it pretends to say something generally about Gandhi — or at least we pretend it does — when it leaves out an important point.
You can bring up all sorts of fiction to back up whatever you want.
‘Actus, I don
I liked his book on Holocaust and denial in america. As well as his pamphlet “pacifism as a pathology.”
Well what a surprise that you would like those book actus. It seems that you have a lot of hatred for your own country.
From what I remember, he doesn’t argue that violence is more practical — I don’t think its a good idea to engage in armed struggle against the US — he just argues against the moral superiority of the pathology of pacifism.
Why? Is it because you think it is a bad tactic as opposed to a worthy goal? So the truth is that Leftists are not pacifists. And worse they want to kill their own fellow citizens.
‘Well what a surprise that you would like those book actus. It seems that you have a lot of hatred for your own country.’
What part of those books is connected to your identification with ‘your own country’? Genocide? Pacifism?
‘Why? Is it because you think it is a bad tactic as opposed to a worthy goal? ‘
Because I think you’ll lose. There’s plenty of other ways disagree with policy in this country. Like voting and activism. I don’t know if thats Ward’s point.
It does say something generally about the effectiveness of pacifism against different kind of oppressors. You apparently are incapable of seeing the difference between Nazi Germany and Imperial England. And probably Jim Crow America. As a white person, “activism” in the context of the rest of your statements makes me want to go check my ammo, because I don’t want to be another victory in the civil rights struggle. Have I got it straight now?
Gandhi was shot to death, in actual, real-live history. Not by Nazis, but dead nonetheless.
‘You apparently are incapable of seeing the difference between Nazi Germany and Imperial England.’
I do see it. I think this book tries to make an intellectually dishonest claim by stopping its story just as it was getting interesting.
I think there’s even some NRA propaganda out there that claims that gun control laws were first meant to keep guns out of the hands of black people, lest they defend themselves against the racists state supported terrorism of jim crow. I have no idea if this is true or not. But I don’t think we are a point where armed resistance is necessary to the civil rights struggle. It would be woefully counter-productive, not to mention disproportionate.
‘Gandhi was shot to death, in actual, real-live history. Not by Nazis, but dead nonetheless.’
By a hindu nationalist who didn’t like ghandi’s conciliatory attitute towards the muslims. To piggyback onto the nazis, thats who they would be left dealing with after the peaceful resistance was eliminated.
“But I don’t think we are a point where armed resistance is necessary to the civil rights struggle. It would be woefully counter-productive, not to mention disproportionate.”
Well, that fills me with confidence. “Counter-productive” and “disproportionate” don’t equal “it would be morally wrong to shoot Laura just because she’s white”.
Also, actus, if you don’t like the story I described, please feel free to write your own. And this is probably the last time I’ll try to have a conversation with you, to our mutual relief, I’m sure.
‘”Counter-productive” and “disproportionate” don’t equal “it would be morally wrong to shoot Laura just because she’s white”.’
I think disproportionate has a moral component. I personally don’t like waging terror wars against populations. It does seem to be a usefull tactic, as shown by our central american policy in the 80’s. It is a shame that it is so usefull.
I think Ward’s point is more subtle than to morally legitemize killing you because you are white.
‘Also, actus, if you don’t like the story I described, please feel free to write your own.’
That’s an odd retort.
actus, I will take into account, the next time I am tempted to respond to your, that you think this madman Churchill has anything to say that any sane person should attend to.
He’s a nut job, pure and simply, right down to the Che Guevera posturing with guns. And you can find something in this idiocy that is worth discussing?
Now, at least we know where you get your “information.”
‘And you can find something in this idiocy that is worth discussing?’
that pacifism is often a racist, elitist opinion from a position of safe prvilige.
I also liked the book about holocaust and denial in the US.
But we’d rather refer to it all as idiocy.
that pacifism is often a racist, elitist opinion from a position of safe prvilige.
Assuming it is possible to translate your delusional ranting into English, It appears that you are in favor of violence against White people. Way to go actus. So like you hero Ward Churchill, how many more 9/11’s would you like to see happen?
‘Assuming it is possible to translate your delusional ranting into English, It appears that you are in favor of violence against White people.’
I think you’re unfamiliar with Ward’s argument. He argues that for white peace activists in america to be pacifists while allowing/encouraging/supporting their brown brothers in armed struggle in latin america is a position of racist privilege. At least from what I remember. I read the book a few years ago and no longer have it.
I have no idea where what I said means I like violence against white people. Please. Do go on and explain to us what goes on in your head.
I don’t want any more 9/11’s. I think thats implied when people attack some of Ward’s writings, and I pick to defend or point out the worth of others of his writings, that I don’t agree with the ones being attacked.
I can’t defend a comment that we ‘need’ more 9/11’s, just like I can’t defend a comment that we ‘need’ a pearl harbor type attack in order to carry out my plan to invade iraq.
I think you’re unfamiliar with Ward’s argument. He argues that for white peace activists in america to be pacifists while allowing/encouraging/supporting their brown brothers in armed struggle in latin america is a position of racist privilege.
So do you believe that Ward
‘So do you believe that Ward
Ok, here we go. The bread and butter: Ward Churchill saying MORE on 9/11. Actus, with all do respect, you might want to backtrack some on your reverence for this man.
Read the latest from powerline at http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009476.php
‘Actus, with all do respect, you might want to backtrack some on your reverence for this man.’
Can I backtrack to my initial comment that I have not moved from that I liked his books on pacifism as pathology and holocaust and denial in america?
Ms. Rave’s honesty about her experience in Ward Churchill’s class has been helpful in bringing some light in on his frauds. However, I thought her perception that no one who is not an Indian should be chair of a program in American Indian Studies goes in part to the heart of this whole affair. I am a European historian — but I’m an American, so does that mean I can’t study that history with the same success as a European? God forbid I should want to study literature by black writers or African history or Asian politics. We have jettisoned the striving for objective scholarship if the subject area bears on some form of “identity.” We have spent resources in our universities on overlapping specialty “area studies” niches where malcontents and marginal performers can slide by simply by laying claim to some form of minority or victim status. Minority students who choose those courses named for them end up wallowing in that with which they are already comfortable and familiar. And to make matters worse, many institutions create some type of “multicultural” course required by all students for graduation so that the department or program will have enough enrollments to keep their faculty employed. This is the posture inside many of our colleges and universities which helps create the Ward Churchills. It should be addressed honestly by university administrations who are not stampeded by the mere thought that someone might threaten to sue them.