I signed. I think that there will continue to be erosion of speech and I think it is vital to respond. I did not like the politics of Dr. Sami al-Arian at the University of South Florida--who claimed in his Washington Post interview that he brought in Florida for George Bush in addition to his denouncements of Israel--but I supported Dr.al-Arian's right to a fair hearing prior to his dismissal.
There's no easy way to respond to the flurry of attacks on academic freedom. In some ways, the al-Arian case was easier for us than the Churchill case is. The administration at USF never made a pretense at the due-process protections of peer review, and faculty were not involved. In Colorado, the standard processes have been followed in terms of the allegations of research misconduct, faculty have been at the center of the substantive judgments, and the administration early and properly dismissed allegations that were tied to Churchill's extramural activities. In the al-Arian case, there was nothing tied to al-Arian's job in the administration's claims except as a pretense. In the Churchill case, the substantive allegations are precisely about Churchill's academic activities.
It's difficult to see how Colorado could have avoided an investigation of the substantive academic charges against Churchill. The policies of almost every university say (in essence), "You investigate every charge that has substantive merit." The problem is that Churchill is guilty of research misconduct, and he was charged with it in a manner that imposed political pressures on the university administration.
It's that political context that the members of the various faculty committees have wrestled with. Should we defend someone attacked inappropriately, even if they have had academic due process and the focus is on the stuff we care about (scholarship in the case of Churchill)? I'm assuming you come down on the side of paying attention to the political context.
I come down on the side of paying attention to the substantive merits, especially where the administration fights against the inappropriate pressures. In some ways, it's remarkable that the Colorado administration did toss out what they did, given the other pressures they were under about the football team.
What disturbs me most about the text of the petition is that it does not focus on the political context (about which I think reasonable people can differ, as the members of the external review committee for Colorado did) but on the substantive report. I've read the report. It's not about trivial matters; I am now convinced that Churchill did serious harm to the field of Native American studies as well as to his career.
Nicely said. I was interested in particular to see that you mention Jon Wiener, who had a column in IHE last month in which he praised the process in the Churchill case and compared it favorably to Emory's handling of Bellesiles. (In that IHE piece, Wiener once again made the proportionality argument, claiming--still unpersuasively, in my opinion--that the misconduct in Bellesiles's case was only a minor part of the book).
In some ways, I do find Churchill's case more disturbing than Bellesiles's. From the beginning, the attacks on Bellesiles focused on his research methods and conclusions. Churchill initially came under fire not for his scholarship or his teaching, but for his political remarks about 9/11; most of his critics hadn’t—and I’d wager, still haven’t—read much if any of his academic writing (which doesn't seem much of a loss). So the petitioners at least have that much on their side.
But at the end of the day, Churchill--like Bellesiles--is hard to defend. Tho I'm somewhat uncomfortable with how he came under scrutiny, ultimately either his work bears up or it doesn't. And in this case, I think the report was pretty persuasive that it doesn't.
Hi Sherman— As a co-author of the petition I'm keen to focus on the report because I don't think its as "slam dunk" as many others do. It points out evidence of shoddy scholarship, yes, but it also is full of equivocations, and I think these have to be considered alongside the political context issues (clearly disputatious, as you note), as well as the internal process issues (less commented upon by outsiders, though the committee certainly worries about it). I'm struck by the report's concession, in several places, that Churchill is right about "general points" and some basic "historical truths", even though he has details wrong. I've worked with native scholars, and I've learned from some of them that, at the end of the day, it's the "general points" and "core truths" about their history that really matters, and what these points/truths mean for how they should live today. In other words, the issues are ones of both knowing and living. I suspect that you could fine some native scholars who are OK with Churchill's basic take on native history, if his message about living was right. But with Churchill as polarizing a figure in the native community as he is in the mainstream academic community, I suppose we'll never know...
Tom Mayer (sociology prof at CU) got at some of the above with his analysis of the committee report that's available on the web, and with his understanding that Churchill was purposely hired at CU as a provocateur given to polemics, which often avoid details. (I was struck that someone posted a bit of Tom's analysis on IHE earlier this month, but it escaped comment). The late Vine Deloria also filled something of the provocateur's role at CU. His book "Red Earth, White Lies" is filled with distortions and misrepresentations (especially of Western science), and could very easily be targeted for academic misconduct on the CU investigative committee's "broad and elastic" definition. Yet the book's focus on core truths about the native experience in America, and its critique of Western epistemology makes it a very useful text in my class on Ancient North America. I can say the same about some of Churchill's work.
I think that the academic mainstream has much to learn from indigenous philosophies and histories, but we too often refuse to seriously engage them. The author of the Inside Higher Education piece couldn’t even get Oneida Meranto's name spelled correctly. Collapsing native american studies into "ethnic studies" doesn't help, and it didn't help anyone not to have a Native Americanist on the investigative committee (instead we have a specialist in Mexican-American Studies-- another aspect of process that bothered me). Ward Churchill may not have respected indigenous philosophies and histories (as concluded by the committee), but I don't think the investigative committee respected them either. I think it was perverse, for example, to have a white-folks dominated committ
Dean,
I've read Mayer's commentary, which is essentially the proportionality argument that I find unpersuasive. You're making a different argument, claiming that there is a different epistemology in Native American studies that sees specific evidentiary claims as less important than broader arguments. Is it possible that you're confusing the question of ultimate historical truths with specific attempts to demonstrate them?
If there's a deeper argument to be made about the report, I'm not sure a petition is the appropriate forum. It worries me greatly that, at least in your own words, the motivation for the petition is less concerned with the specifics of Churchill's scholarship, politics, and allegedly bad "attitude" ... than ... with the threat the decision to fire him poses to academic freedom and activist scholarship in America. We're just going to part ways here: To me, the specifics matter a great deal.
Sherman-- Specifics and details matter greatly to me, too. But so do differences in epistemological traditions, and administrative acountability. I do see something different going on in native american studies, and I'm still trying to work through it. I'm more persuaded by Mayer than you are, but also unsettled by the multiple complications that come together in this case. For me this doesn't boil down to one thing. From the beginning I've always been concerned about collateral damage for other faculty, especially at CU given its well-known serial administrative mismanagement of its own internal affairs (and I know that there are colleagues there who are afraid to speak up). That's what I'm referring to in that private email that was leaked (unethically, in my view) to Pirate Ballerina, although there's nothing in it that I wouldn't elaborate upon publicly. I'm not sure what forum exists to express deeper worries about the report, and whether that would matter. I'm not sure a petition matters much either, but it's something we felt needed to be said. Cheers, Dean
Being "unsettled by the multiple complications that come together in this case" is common. We've faced that at USF. But it's usually administrators or those exerting outside pressure who conflate issues—precisely why disentangling them sensibly is important.
I'm a little confused why faculty at CU who may know of specific missteps and bungling in the administration wouldn't be willing to come forward, since there are plenty who signed statements in support of Churchill's due-process and general academic freedom rights earlier in the controversy. If there had been absolute silence, I could understand the claim of a chill. But that hasn't been the case. If there has been mangling, someone can put a clear explanation with documentation somewhere online. Or feed it to Mayer, who apparently has no such fears.
Sherman-- To say that the complications are multiple isn't to say that they can't be disentangled. I've disentangled the big ones that folks are talking about for myself, and I'm still working through other complications (e.g., the Native epistemologies thing we discussed earlier). I don't know how many faculty at CU are feeling a "chill". Mayer certainly sees plenty as being MIA (July 5 letter to Boulder Camera), but for what reasons I haven't a clue. I've spoken to junior faculty here and elsewhere who say they would like to sign the petition, but fear consequences. Just a handful, mind you, but I think it's my job as a Faculty Senate president to worry about the few. Since Ward Churchill and I are forever joined at the hip because of my "dangerous professor" label (which turns on a bunch of misinterpretations of my work) I can appreciate their concerns.
Professor Dorn: Thanks for the link.
Professor Saitta: I take issue with your allegation that "leaking" the TDS petition to PB was unethical. Nowhere in the copy of the email I received were the email or the petition listed as "private" or "not for public release", or "burn after reading", not even an "entre nous." The headers of your email showed that it was sent to a DU mail-list; I got it from an anonymous source, perhaps inside DU, perhaps not. I've since seen other versions of the email-and-petition that were widely disseminated among other faculties--hardly Manhattan Project level security.
I should note incidentally that while PB may not have a demographic inclined to sign your petition, it does have a large number of academic visitors, as well as representatives of the media (mainstream and otherwise), so the likelihood of your petition getting far more exposure than it would otherwise is great.
Dear Jim-- I didn't mean any offense to you personally. You'll recall I was good-natured about my email appearing with the petition in my original post to Pirate Ballerina. Plus, in a private email to you (which I hope you received) I was complimentary about your site's tracking of the Churchill issue. I just thought it was bad manners for whoever sent you the petition to also include my prefatory email, which was intended for DU faculty only. It was hastily written, and now it's being dissected along with the petition. I don't mind answering to Sherman about my email, but I hope the petition is the main focus.
Professor Saitta:
No personal offense taken; I assumed you were being critical of the action of whoever sent me the email, rather than my posting it on PB.
I received your email confirming (at my request) that you in fact were the author of the petition email, but I didn't get your complimentary email--our email server has been cantankerous of late. So thanks for the compliment.
You'll notice that while I did post your personal note that prefaced the petition email, I have not commented on it, nor will I. First of all, it says nothing incendiary or even controversial, being a rather straightforward explanation of the petition's origins. More importantly, like you, I believe the focus should be on the petition itself (though perhaps not for the same reasons).
I should also say that I appreciate your stepping up to the plate with your willingness to engage all comers in discussion about the petition.
Professor Dorn:
I'm not sure what you mean by "organizer" in your errata note, but a whois of teachersfordemocracy.org reveals that Timothy Shortell is, in fact, the registrant and administrative contact for the website. In at least one sense he is the "organizer."
To Prof. Saitta: What native epistemology involves making up people who never lived and events that never happened? What native epistemology permits plagiarizing the work of an author who has specifically and emphatically prohibited you from republishing her essay?
Where is this native standard of scholary ethics written down in CU's policy? From my reading, CU's written policy holds all of its faculty to the same standard--that written into federal law regarding research misconduct.
Hi Thomas– let me first finish the thought in my earlier post that was truncated because I think it relates (apologies, Sherman, for longwindedness). I was saying that I thought it perverse for a white-folks dominated committee to "condemn WC for "disrespecting" oral traditions as a source of historical information when mainstream anthropology, archaeology, and history have been disrespecting oral traditions for several centuries—precisely because they vary in their historical details (but rarely in core historical truths). The hypocrisy is thick!"
To your questions, briefly: To my knowledge there's nothing in indigenous epistemology that justifies fabricating evidence and plagiarism. I'm simply struck by the fact that what Churchill is being hammered for (hewing consistently to some core truths about the physical and cultural genocide of Indian people, even as he's all over the place with respect to details, some manufactured) perhaps isn't all that different from how native people tell stories about their own past. Oral traditions, it seems to me, are deeply political, dynamic accounts that are as much about how we are to live as how we are to know (Tom Mayer seemed to appreciate this in his critique of the committee report). The committee report suggests that there is some evidence in oral tradition that the US Army purposely spread smallpox with blankets, yes? The rub is that Churchill invoked this evidence only at the 11th hour to save his butt, yes? I'm concerned about the mainstream academy selectively using native traditions to get what it wants, when it wants it without seriously engaging the different way of knowing that's embedded there. I'll agree that Churchill is guilty of research misconduct by the criterial rationality (e.g., "preponderance of evidence" and other principles) that underpins Western epistemology and federal law. My concerns have always been with the larger context and process aspects of the case, as well as with the fact that Western epistemology and federal law continue to harm native people in significant ways (e.g., in the area of cultural repatriation). I think we need some change there, and I don't believe that putting Churchill's head on a pike is going to help accomplish that.
I don't see the relevance of comparing Churchill's writing to Indian epistemology. He's not an Indian, and he's not doing oral history. He's purporting to write documented scholarship. And he just makes stuff up. I don't know of any epistemology that would tolerate, much less value pure fabrication.
I have investigated the Three Tribes' oral tradition on the 1837 epidemic, although I don't claim to be expert on that tradition. The stories of smallpox blanket genocide postdate Churchill's publication. Marilyn Hudson, the tribal historian and curator of the tribal museum, does not tell such stories. She retells the earlier stories, which do not significantly differ from the academic history.
I don't see Churchill's future as remotely relevant to Indian issues. He's not an Indian, and has a shockingly tiny constituency among tribal Indians. Why should CU base its disposition of Churchill's misconduct case on the sweeping issues you raise?
Also, why does your petition neglect to mention Churchill's plagiarism?
Thomas-- The petition is a consensus document agreed to by drafters who hold an enormous variety of opinions about all sorts of things, including the gravity of Churchill's plagiarism. It doesn't mention plagiarism because all of us believe that the political circumstances that led to the "formal complaint" against Churchill and the intense scrutiny of his work that followed are much more important at this particular time, in this particular place. You are heavily involved and heavily invested in seeing Churchill condemned for plagiarism, and I have no issue with that. Others of us are concerned about other legitimate issues, including some that are, as you say, "sweeping" and that I don't believe for a second that CU will pause to consider. I signed on to the petition because of particular principles that are sacred to me and that are under siege in a number of cases beyond Churchill's. CU will do what it will do about Churchill, and the battle over these particular principles will continue.
Dean, you're right to say that I'm heavily involved, but I am not heavily invested. I have no personal stake in the future of Churchill's career. I believe that he is such an outlier that his fortunes will have an insignificant impact on the academy as a whole. If anything I think the academy will be far better off without him.
If you look at the piece I wrote for hnn.us last year, you'll see that I raised all of the issues about political interference in university governance. I have the same concerns on this that you do. But I don't see how letting Churchill slide helps the situation. It would simply demonstrate that the academy is incapable of self-governance and that tenure is broken. It would invite more interference, not less.
I disagree with your characterizaton of the "intense scrutiny" of Churchill's work. From what I've seen, the only research misconduct uncovered by the media was Kevin Vaughan's discovery of Churchill's fabrication of a John Smith genocide. And Kevin only found that because he was already on the trail of the 1837 fraud that I gave him. Every other charge the CU committee investigated were problems raised by academics, mostly by John LaVelle.
Furthermore, the notion that Churchill's entire corpus has been vetted and that they only found these few tiny problems is incorrect. There are many similar examples in Churchill's writings, and they are easy to find. Just check his citations. The CU committee only addressed the ones that were brought to them in DiStefano's complaint.
If your petition simply deplored the political interference in the Churchill affair, then I would sign it myself. But when the petition goes so far as to trivialize the extent of Churchill's misconduct, and to call for letting him slide--well, I am at a loss to understand this position.
The petition's language seems dishonest to me. By failing to mention the plagiarism, the petition verges on concealing discomfirming data. It approaches the type of falsification of data that Churchill habitually engages in. Scholars have an obligation to deal forthrightly with uncomfortable facts, instead of trying to sweep them under the table and pretend that they don't exist.
Thomas-- Points well-taken about your involvement, and I also respect your reading of the petition. I had hoped that the petition wouldn't come off as trivializing Churchill's misconduct, nor suggesting that something shouldn't be done that was consistent with precedent on plagiarism cases. We only called for a reversal of the firing decision. Perhaps we're not clear enough about that but, as I say in the IHE interview, we didn't talk about what, if anything, would be appropriate punishment.
The "near-obsessive" comment about the committee's inquiry is also causing us some problems, and Sherman has gone after that in a way that suggests that the petitioners don't care about historical accuracy, academic standards, or research integrity (which is most definitely not the case). Personally, when I look at an investigative committee comprised of two CU Law School profs (with the chair being an experienced prosecutor) and read their inferences as to Churchill's "intent" to deceive through footnoting, self-citation, etc. (many have noted that the guy is not trained as a scholar, but rather has filled the role of provocateur and polemicist, with CU's complicity), and combine that with the absence of a Native Americanist on the committee who might appreciate some of those larger issues I raised earlier, I get uncomfortable and start worrying about a "purge". That discomfort is compounded by the fact that yet another CU law professor has been editorializing against Churchill in the Rocky Mountain News which, like other local papers, has arguably been inflaming public and political opinion against Churchill from the beginning by de-contextualizing his 9/11 essay remarks (a colleague in the CU School of Journalism is doing some very interesting--and methodologically sound-- quantitative and qualitative research that substantiates that argument). This stuff is also not trivial, in my view.
Timothy Burke's discussion of epistemologies, academic and non-, follows up on this comment thread and is highly recommended.
Commenting by HaloScan
