I've been looking at the Ward Churchill case more than I expected. I don't know why, exactly. It might be because Churchill is such a fantastically outrageous character - both in the tone of his published works and in the depths of his academic malfeasance. It might be because of the delicious irony involved. Churchill's misconduct was discovered, after all, as a result of the public hue and cry that came after one of his essays came to light - an essay that Churchill had subtitled, "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." Mostly, though, I think it's because as I read more of what Churchill has written in response to the investigations, I begin to grasp just how massive the differences in perspective between Churchill and his investigators really are, and just how representative they are of a large divide in our society today.
I say "a" large divide and not "the" large divide because there are so many things that appear to divide us today - religions, politics, sports franchises, you name it - that it's a bit inane to single any one out as "the" divide. It would be like looking at someone who's been run over by a steamroller, and trying to point out "the" broken bone. This divide, though, might be the most dangerous in the long run. On one side of the divide are people who think that reality matters, and that it's never acceptable to misrepresent the facts. On the other side are people who think that reality is something that's relative, and that it's OK - at least in some circumstances - to tailor reality to match your beliefs.
If you've read this blog before, I hope you're not surprised when I say that I put myself firmly on the side of reality. Lest you think that I might be exaggerating when I put Churchill on the other side of the gap, I'll provide my source. The faculty investigative committee report that outlined Churchill's transgressions provides this bit of information (ironically enough, given the extent to which the misconduct case revolves around citations and sources, in a footnote:
The Committee does not agree with David Henige's statement, quoted approvingly by Professor Churchill, that when scholars are attempting to challenge established historical beliefs about topics for which the evidence is limited, "The aim is to convince without being able to demonstrate. In the circumstances, disputants are forced to take liberties with the evidence and presentation, for to maintain rigorous standards would be to abandon the contest as unwinnable" (Numbers from Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate [Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1998], p. 8 (as cited by Professor Churchill in Submission C, with the comment, "Exactly so").
(Source: Report of the Investigative Committee, footnote 98, pp. 45-46)
Churchill appears to have been practicing exactly that sort of "scholarship." In one essay, Churchill claimed that:
"In 1836, at Fort Clark, on the upper Missouri River, the U.S. Army did the same thing as Amherst. It was considered desirable to eliminate the Mandans, who were serving as middlemen in the regional fur trade, and, by claiming a share of the profits in the process, diminishing the take of John Jacob Astor and other American businessmen. So the commander of Fort Clark had a boatload of blankets shipped upriver from a smallpox infirmary in St. Louis, with the idea of distributing them during a 'friendship' parlay with the Mandans"
(Quoted in Report of the Investigative Committee, page 62)
and that:
"When the first Mandans began to display symptoms of the disease, they went straight to the post surgeon. They knew nothing about treating smallpox, but they'd heard about it and were terrified of it, and, since it was a white man's disease, they went to the white doctor to find out what to do. What did he tell them? To scatter, to run for theirshelter in the villages of healthy relatives as far away as possible[142]"
(Quoted in Report of the Investigative Committee, page 71)
The problem is that when the Investigative Committee looked at that statement, they found that (a) there was no permanent Army presence at Fort Clark (it was a trading post), and that there was no "commander"; (b) there is no record that "a boatload" of blankets were shipped from anywhere, much less a "smallpox infirmary in St. Louis which; (c) doesn't appear to have existed; (d) that there is no evidence that there was a "post surgeon" or "white doctor" of any kind at Fort Clark; and (e) that the smallpox pandemic in question happened in 1837, not 1836. I think that it's unacceptable to "take liberties with the evidence" in the first place, but that moves far beyond merely "taking liberties." That's just making stuff up, and it's wrong.
I do not doubt that Churchill was using this example in an effort to convince people that he is correct on the more important issue of whether or not the decimation of Native Americans at the hands of white settlers was truly a genocide. I don't even have much of a problem with his conclusion that it was. My problem is with his willingness to jettison the truth in favor of truthiness - to disregard the real facts in favor of the "facts" that sound and feel right.
Reality matters in academia, and that's why Churchill needs to start job hunting, but it matters even more in the real world. If each of us were, as Churchill did, to manufacture our own facts, our own reality, to justify our own beliefs, we will never, ever, ever be able to sit down together to hammer out our differences. If we do not accept the same basic reality, we will never be able to agree on what the problems we face are, much less hope to solve them. If we do not all agree to live in reality, we will never be able to talk to each other. Instead, we'll just continue on talking past each other, while the world around us crashes down around our ears.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Mike......
A thoughtful piece and I was afraid through part of it what conclusion you were going to draw. I would agree with what you said and add a few details. Most professors at UC have doctorate degrees. Ward Churchill has masters that has provoked some investigation as to its authenticity. He was found guilty of misrepresentation, fabrication and plagiarism. Your example points out the convenient fabrication of historical facts.
The sad truth is that Churchill will now gain superstar status with the extreme left. He is already a cult hero, but his firing will elevate him still further. Besides the millions he will walk away with from his lawsuit, he will be a hit with the left on the lecture circuit for some time to come. Last July, in a piece I wrote about him, I predicted, incorrectly, that he would retire a full professor from UC. He may still do just that from another institution. Actually, rumor has it, in your state.
Ironically, you touched on another subject I have written on as well. The great divide in America. I suggested, tongue in cheek, that we divide the country. The liberals could have the south and all the conservatives would move north. I was only half kidding. That may be the direction we are heading in. I believe it is that bad.
I am including links to both articles since the recent one is good companion reading to your article and the second one is about the divide in America.
Thanks for a great read.
http://www.livebreatheanddie.com/2007/07/25/flaky-hero-of-left-will-now…
http://www.livebreatheanddie.com/2007/05/21/the-great-divide/
Indeed, every time my ideological leanings cause me to notice the anti-intellectual and relativist pablum being tossed around in "conservative" circles now of days, I remind myself that we have our own version of that on the left, primarily concentrated in the POMO lit crit crowd.
While I agree with your sentiments, and certainly agree that what Churchill does is inexcusable - what needs to be remembered is that 'facts' are not always as absolute as we tend to give them credit for. History is invariably written by the dominant forces of the time and of the present. While we may have particular 'credible' primary documents that say one thing, there are a great many sides to the story that invariably don't get told, quite often because someone didn't want them to, or because they weren't able to be told. So while you might like to paint a clear picture of reality vs fantasy here (or what you clearly think of as good vs bad) we also need to keep in mind that when we're talking about history, 'reality' IS fantasy. It is constructed from what little we know, and often from rather partisan perspectives that we have accounts from. Am I excusing people who invent 'facts' to support their claims? Not at all. It should be identified and stamped out. But let's also be careful about making claims to 'reality', particularly when talking about History. There are a lot of gaps that we are unable to fill, but often a lot which suggests there may have been something worth thinking about that once filled them.
Calm and insightful, and I'm 99% in agreement. Could you help me over that 1%?
Should the investigative committee have been empowered to recommend the removal of tenure and termination of employment of a tenured professor?
And is the reason you mention -- a reason which is amply supported by the evidence -- gross inaccuracy, sufficiently bad to justify termination of tenure and employment?
Rev. Bob--
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the main purpose of a university is to provide an education for its students. Deliberately spreading lies rather obviously defeats the purpose. Arguing that Churchill shouldn't be fired for deliberate, gross inaccuracy is like arguing that a banker shouldn't be fired for only embezzling a little bit.
Rev. Bob:
I don't see any problem, at least in principle, with an investigative committee recommending a specific punishment. The committee was made up of people who were themselves tenured faculty, so I'm not sure if there's another group that would be better suited to make recommendations on the conduct of a tenured professor.
As for your second question:
First, I don't think "gross inaccuracy" is bad enough to justify canning a professor, but I also don't think that "gross inaccuracy" is a good description of what Churchill did. To me, "gross inaccuracy" implies incompetence, but not deceit. Churchill's conduct displayed deceit more than incompetence - he made up "facts" to support the point he wanted to make.
Second, I didn't choose that particular example because I thought it was the worst thing that Churchill was charged with. I picked it because out of the things that he did, it was the best example of the "reality is irrelevant" attitude that I wanted to discuss. Far worse, at least in my mind, was the way he cited things that he had "ghostwritten" and published under the names of other researchers (itself a no-no) in support of his own arguments without bothering to mention that they weren't really independent sources. (For a detailed description of some of that, see pages 23-25 of the report linked in the body of the post.)
Let's remember that one of the goals of the UCB committee was to respond appropriately to people who genuinely do not have the best interest of science at heart.
David Horowitz, as most folks here know, is one of Churchill's principal critics. I imagine no one here is particularly comfortable with his crowing on his own website. First he declares himself an ally of Churchill and an opponent of his sacking. And then he continues with this:
That's a pretty good trick: posing as a friend of free speech and open inquiry while pandering to the very forces who would destroy them.
Nevertheless, it doesn't make a man good (or a good researcher) to be opposed by villains.
You and Horowitz (mostly you) have left me no choice. I'm reading the report. Btw, the copy you have on your website is damaged, at least in my Adobe Reader, but a Google search for a suitable phrase reveals the copy at UCB, whose URL is way too hideous to repeat here.
I've got through the committee's response to the first charge, alleged misconduct in his citation of the General Allotment Act of 1887, and I have to say I'm not impressed. I see the hand of the sloppy researcher, not the mens rea of the fraud. Even citing his own ghostwritten papers impresses me as more lazy than mendacious.
More as I read it.
It looks like we have a significant difference of opinion, because I thought citing "ghostwritten" papers as independent sources was one of (if not the) most outrageous things he did.
For starters, it's not "ghostwriting" when it involves academic work. It's cheating. That's as true for a tenured professor as it is for the kid who will do your homework for you for five bucks.
Second, citing work you've written that doesn't have your name on it creates the impression that people other than you support your position. That's bad in academics, because it can lead to other academics being less skeptical of your facts than they should. After all, nobody likes reinventing the wheel unnecessarily, so why waste time trying to double check facts, or repeat experiments, when other independent people have already done so. There are only so many hours in the day, so why not do something new instead.
Finally, I can't see writing that conduct off as "lazy". There's no way he could conceivably not known that he was doing something wrong. He'd spent too much time in academia for that excuse to hold water.
I Got Your University; Right Here:
Ward Churchill had a friend, Ruben G. Mendoza, a teaching assistant at the University of Colorado, Denver. Ruben's department Chair Dr. Moore, for abusing students, booted him from the university, against which Mendoza promptly filed suit. Ruben, an ersatz Chicano, resurfaced as an activist, and got fast-tracked to tenure through one Steven F. Arvizu, at CSU Monterey Bay.
Mendoza became the nosebleed of the fledgling university. Churchill was invited to CSUMB by Ruben to speak at a weeklong gathering of the clan. Mendoza also engages in academic misconduct, so far without consequence. The Duke lacrosse team fiasco shows that liberals have created a phony cultural paradigm that distorts reality. And, no one exploits phony paradigms, obfuscates truth, or games the system like the Clintons. Point being, miscreants like Churchill and Mendoza have powerful political backers: the fish rots from the head.
The Taliban might as well as run the university. -David Horowitz
Set the Wayback Machine for 23 August 1995: a hot day in the nation's capitol. But 3000 miles due west on California's Central Coast, a constellation of events was unfolding that would have a profound effect on Western civilization; plunge it into decades of war. Yet, this cataclysmic upheaval was only part of the plan. Bill Clinton picked up the telephone. It was his Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, calling from a payphone in Monterey. Bill held the receiver at arms length and gazed at the tasteful floral arrangement that adorned the Oval Office. Leon's disembodied voice filled the room. What now, asked Hillary. It's that damn college, mouthed Bill. There was, no getting out. Hillary nodded, just tell Leon he'll get whatever he needs: http://theseedsof9-11.com
I have at last finished reading the committee report on Ward Churchill, and I can report without fear of contradiction that Professor Churchill is a brilliant historian and would be an asset to any history department in the world.
Oh all right. No, I'm not insane. Professor Churchill is not a brilliant historian. He's a very bad historian. The incidents investigated by the committee show an ignorance of and disregard for the methods employed by people engaged in historical scholarship, and, worse in my view, they demonstrate areas where Churchill has failed to find the truth.
Yet some questions remain. Ethnic studies professors are not historians. Their role involves both scholarship and polemic, and at least part of their duty is to represent not just historical and present-day situations themselves, but the perceptions of those situations among the ethnic populations. The alert reader will note that I've avoided the word "fact," because the strongest fact of all in the domain of ethnic studies could very well be that perception.
[I can see this turning into a much larger article, and I refer you to my own blog when I get around to writing that article. For now I'll just summarize. Assume the following paragraphs are placeholders for sections.]
The questions of the General Allotment Act of 1887 and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 do not, in my opinion, rise very far above the level of nitpicking. Particularly in Churchill's interpretation of the latter act, he says it specifies a "blood quantum" when in fact it's more accurate to say that, the way most tribes determine membership specifies that quantum (and therefore, the "blood quantum" is derived from that act).
[Discussion of the other charges goes here.]
When the committee decided to review Churchill's work based on standards commonly applied to historians, they effectively determined the verdict.
I'm concerned by the weak definition of tenure in the report (p. 100):
There is very little to support academic freedom in that statement.
But at the end of the day, I have to cast my vote with the truth. The truth, according to the motto of my old university, will make you free. And perhaps some readers will have attended a university whose motto is a blunt "Truth". Truth counts. Truth exists wholly apart from the perceptions of truth and the "truth of legend" shared by an ethnic group, and the purpose of historical methodology is to arrive at that independent truth.
If an ethnic studies department wants to juxtapose that truth with perceived truth, it would, in my opinion, be fulfilling its mission. But any department which builds on anything but that independent truth (I really will have to figure out a better phrase for that) is building on sand.
Should Churchill be sacked? The committee recommendation was 2 votes for a 2 year suspension, 2 for a 5 year suspension, and 1 for termination. The Regents sacked him. Was it political? You bet your ass it was. Was it cowardly? In a State where so many religious conservatives are ready to march at the whim of their leaders, the University wanted out of the crosshairs of groups that thinks Jesus's most important commandment was to lower the capital gains tax, and that any education beyond the 3 Rs (plus a 4th, religion) is wasted money.
If I were a professor at Colorado, would I get my butt over to the next meeting of my professional society and paper the place with my CV? You bet.
But will firing replacing Churchill be a good thing for ethnic studies and for the department? Yup. It sure will. On the whole, a good decision for the University and the discipline, a bad decision for people who are still place some hope in academic freedom for their personal safety.