Current and Local and Breaking News for Denver, Colorado and the surrounding area : Rocky Mountain News

Editor's blog

John Temple is the editor, president and publisher of the Rocky Mountain News. You can e-mail him at editor@rockymountainnews.com. He also writes a weekly Saturday column.

Ward Churchill responds to our series

Monday, June 6 at 12:34 PM

The CU professor refused to answer any questions from the Rocky Mountain News in the week leading up to publication of our 'Churchill files' series, but on Saturday he sent reporter Charlie Brennan an e-mail contesting several aspects of our report.

Read his e-mail, my response and reader comments, which are found after Churchill's e-mail.

Here's Churchill's e-mail.-----Original Message-----
From: Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu [mailto:Ward.Churchill@colorado.edu]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:05 PM
To: Brennan, Charlie
Cc: dlane@killmerlane.com
Subject: Re: World Trade Center question

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie.

Go back and listen to the mass media reportage for the afternoon/evening of 9-
11. THAT'S the relevent date, 'cause that's when I turned the "little
Eichmann's" phrase? Eh?

You're gonna hear the 4,500 number tossed around repeatedly (that is, of
course, before Orin Hatch decided that 7,000 sounded better).

So, I didn't get anything "wrong." I simply laid out what my thinking was,
generally speaking, AT THE TIME. I told you that in my e-mail last night --
note the words "immediate aftermath" -- but apparently you "overlooked" it?

How embarrassing for a guy concerned with others' "glaring errors" (yeah,
yeah, I know... It wasn't your fault).

And what the numbers in the 911 Commission Report might have to do with
anything at all -- given that it was published in 2004 while my book was came
out in 2003 -- is a mystery I'm eager for you to resolve.

On the broader front, your colleagues -- Bernie, the Kevins and Laura --
managed to "fabricate" a number of basic facts in their expositions.
Highlights include the following:

* I never set foot in Vietnam in 1967, and never said I did. Nor do any of the
records y'all have bandied about say I did. My tour was January-November 1968.

* I was not promoted to full professor in 1991. That was the year I was hired
as an associate professor.

* I did NOT say I "rewrote the Cohen essay" at Jaimes' request, and I defy
Bernie/Kevin to produce the segment of tape wherein they claim I did.

Such "fraudulent" reporting, and in so few column inches (I mean, the
journalistic profession DOES have "standards" on factual accuracy, doesn't
it?) THIS, after Bernie so mercilessly plagiarised John LaVelle in his initial
piece comparing my prose to Jaimes' (juxtapositions lifted straight out of
LaVelle's end notes, with no attribution whatsover).

Boy, I'd love to see what y'all could do with a booklength effort.

Pass this around to the crew, along with my expectation that there'll be the
usual round of retractions/corrections, based on the collectivity of
your "scholarship."

And, by the way, tell Laura she can relax now. She did me such great service
with her piece on the "Water Plot" that I'm inclined to bestow the Paula Zahn
Award on her.

Carry on.
WC

Here's my response.

Point 1 regarding his 9/11 essay.

Ward Churchill on May 26 was presented in writing a question pertaining to his source for the "standard media figure" of 4,500 killed at the World Trade Center - from which he calculated that 3,100 of the dead fit his label of "little Eichmann." He did not respond. He was then e-mailed at 10:46 a.m. Thursday with the same question. He did not respond until 7:58 p.m. Friday, at which time Charlie Brennan had finished work for the day and was not at the office to receive his e-mail. Churchill followed up with a second e-mail (which I've included above) at 1:05 p.m. Saturday, the day the contested story appeared in print.

In the story we said:

The University of Colorado professor overstates the number of people who died there by at least 1,500, even after having two years to revise the Internet essay he says he wrote "from the gut" on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.

Churchill has said that his critics haven't given adequate consideration to the revised, fully annotated version, titled The Ghosts of 9-1-1, published in his 2003 book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality. (emphasis added)

It is in the newer version from AK Press that he assigns a number to those he describes as the "faceless bureaucrats and technical experts who had willingly (and profitably) harnessed themselves to the task making America's genocidal world order hum with maximal efficiency."

On page 33, in footnote 127, he wrote: "For the record, using the standard media figure of about 4,500 dead at the WTC, my own arithmetic is as follows: Subtracting 300 undocumented workers, 600 documented workers, 100 temp workers, 100 bystanders and 300 firemen from the toll leaves approximately 3,100 little Eichmanns (a tally in which 200-odd police and FBI personnel are most emphatically included)."

But at the time Churchill's book was published, the total number of fatalities had stabilized at a figure far short of 4,500.

It's clear that nowhere in his footnote does Churchill indicate that he is addressing the World Trade Center fatalities only as they were reported in the immediate "aftermath." (Those numbers did go as high, in the first day as 10,000, but soon started dropping dramatically.) The word "aftermath," or a synonym for "aftermath," appears nowhere in the footnote at issue, published by Churchill two years after the fact, when numbers had stabilized for the World Trade Center alone at 3,000 or lower. The News included the 9/11 Commission Report figure of more than 2,981 for all three 9/11 attack sites, merely to indicate that the numbers continued to go down, and made note of the fact that the 9/11 Commission Report was not published until 2004, after Churchill's essay.

Point 2 regarding Vietnam

We were mistaken about when the professor was in Vietnam. We will publish a correction in Tuesday's paper. The article has already been corrected on our Web site. Churchill was in Vietnam in 1968.

Point 3 regarding when he was appointed full professor

The professor mischaracterizes what we said in the story. In this case, he's wrong.

Here's what the story said:

Tenure: Appointed associate professor in 1991 in the communications department. Received tenure in 1991 in same department after sociology and political science departments rejected him. Memo to communications faculty said that by adding Churchill, the department would be "making our contribution to increasing the cultural diversity on campus (Ward is native American)." CU skipped the traditional six-year period of writing, teaching and reviews by outside scholars at three and six years. Former Dean of Arts and Sciences Charles Middleton pushed for tenure, fearing Churchill would accept offer at California State University at Northridge. But no offer was made by Northridge because he lacked a doctorate and his writings contained more advocacy than scholarship, said George Wayne, a former Northridge official. Appointed full professor and his tenure transferred to ethnic studies department in 1997.

Nowhere does it say he was promoted to full professor in 1991. It says he was appointed full professor in 1997.

Point 4 regarding plagiarism
One of Churchill�s assertions is that he never told News reporters Berny Morson and Kevin Vaughan that he �rewrote� Fay Cohen�s original essay.
However, after listening to his exact words in his interview with Berny and Kevin, it is clear to me that is what he said.
The reporters asked Churchill about the allegations that he had published portions of an essay by Cohen, a Harvard-educated professor at Dalhousie University in Canada, without her permission. Portions of that essay were included in a longer piece in a book compiled by Marie Anne Jaimes, also known as Annette, who at the time was married to Churchill. Churchill had a hand in preparing the essay for the book.
Churchill said he was given material that he then reworked.
Here are his exact words on the subject from his interview with us:
�All I�m going to say about the Fay Cohen essay is that I didn�t write the piece. She didn�t say I wrote the piece. And my function in that, and again is a service, is a function basically about, in the capacity of what you guys call rewrite men. You turn your stuff in tonight. I don�t know whether you still do it that way, but I�ve been at this a long time, and that�s what they used to call it in newsrooms, I remember. Rewrite men. Goes over the injections from the various reporters � Factually, you presumed it�s OK. Your rewrite guys don�t go check your facts. But they make your copy, your composite copy, flow.
��I�m the only link she (Cohen) can make to it and it�s because of a line that Annette Jaimes, in finalizing the copy for going to press, in the credit section, said that I took the lead role in preparing the piece. And I think I know what she meant. And she was probably trying to give me a thank you or a complement or whatever. I don�t sit around reading credit sections. It�s not my light reading. So I wasn�t aware of that particular framing of it until it came up lately. I probably would have had it changed. I functioned - I have a role in that, and it was to take what was handed to me by the authors, specifically by Jaimes, which may or may not mean she was the lead author, I don�t know. She was the link. She was the book editor. And said, can you go over this and make it read well, which I did. But your rewrite guys are not the authors of your pieces. You are.�

This is what we wrote in the story Saturday Churchill refers to in his e-mail.

Churchill told the News he rewrote Cohen's work and added the work of others at Jaimes' request.

I believe ours is a fair description of what happened based on Churchill's interview with us and his description of himself as a rewrite man.

I wish the professor would answer more of our questions.

READER COMMENTS

YOU AT THE NEWS ARE ASTONISHING! While thousands die in Iraq as the result of bad information from those in the government charged with getting it right, you nit-pick your way through the writings of a professor who had the gall to tell it the way he saw it. Isn't this just another example of shooting the messenger?

Posted by Laurel Smith on June 6, 2005 8:58 PM

The right to speak freely does not equate to the right to speak irresponsibly. Nor does it equate to the right to demonstrate a lack of academic intregrity toward an age group that tends to see professors as role models. I know - I just graduated. If professors can get away with it, what is to stop students? and what will become of America when the next generation thinks it's okay to lie in the name of free speech?

Posted by Polly on June 6, 2005 9:15 PM

This has been a very interesting series!

Posted by Bob on June 6, 2005 9:37 PM

WC out of CU.
WC out of USA.

Posted by Sam on June 6, 2005 10:13 PM

As a former journalist, I am embarrassed that the Rocky Mountain News has decided Ward Churchill is the proper target of its investigatory zeal. I remember when journalists prided themselves on challenging those in power, questioning societal assumptions, championing social justice. It was an honorable profession and any self-respecting news organization would be embarrassed to participate in a character assassination of an individual like Churchill, notable largely for raising the uncomfortable issue of ordinary Americans' complicity in crimes against citizens of other countries. It is an issue journalists themselves would have raised in times gone by.

Posted by Karen Breslin on June 6, 2005 10:45 PM

It is clear that Mr. Churchill will need to provide further documentation to substantiate his claim regarding the Fort Clark incident.

Whether or not a newspaper is an appropriate forum for this discussion is up for debate.

Professors and journalists of all opinions publish dubious or misleading claims quite often. Usually, however, it is the weak or unpopular who face such scrutiny as this. When Judith Miller (of the New York Times) and Alan Dershowitz (of Harvard), or thousands of others whose work is useful to the "substantial citizens" are fired for their poor work, I will reconsider my disgust for this attack on Mr. Churchill.

Posted by J. Gale on June 7, 2005 12:07 AM

Bob out of USA

Posted by Brent on June 7, 2005 3:41 AM

Oh Wait.... Sam out of the USA

Posted by Brent on June 7, 2005 3:43 AM

Churchill is an embarassment to CU, Colorado, and to the US. I wouldn't want such an arrogant , chainsmoking fake to be teaching my daughter or son. If there are more like him teaching in the higher academics...then we certainly do need some house cleaning.

Posted by Rita on June 7, 2005 5:38 AM

Chruchill is an embarassment to CU, Colorado, and to the US. I wouldn't want such an arrogant , chainsmoking fake to be teaching my daughter or son. If there are more like him teaching in the higher academics...then we certainly do need some house cleaning.

Posted by Rita on June 7, 2005 5:39 AM

I'm somewhat divided about this focus on Ward Churchhill. First off, it does seem a bit extreme to focus on one man for a single essay (and trust me, if that essay doesn't get rediscovered WC is nothing more than another profesor). On the other hand, Ward Churchhill has done and written all of these things. It isn't character assasination when you've given the critics the ammo and loaded the gun.
Freedom of speech does not give you a shield against the audience's views when they tell you you suck.

Posted by J. Meyer on June 7, 2005 5:40 AM

Mr. Churchill: you have the right to free speech. You do not have the right to expect others who disagree with you, to pay for that speech. If CU is so terrible -- go somewhere else. No one will care. Goodbye, and good luck.

Posted by Bart on June 7, 2005 6:23 AM

The RMN focus on Churchill has a value beyond outing a vicious fraud. Churchill has cynically draped himself in academe's flag, free speech.

Academic freedom is not carte blanche to lie, cheat, and steal. The rare academic who disagrees is put on notice, and the fate of WC should encourage those of us who defend such outmoded concepts as intellectual integrity.

Churchill is a fox in the henhouse, and if the hens won't defend themselves, then I'm pleased to see the RMN show up with a broom.

Mick

Posted by Mick McA on June 7, 2005 6:43 AM

Ward Churchill's arrogance knows no bounds. He seems to feel he can do, say and copy anything he wants and get away with it. No, not just get away with it--that it is his right as an academic to do it. Thank you for your series. Someone needed to bring this fraud to task.

Posted by Mary on June 7, 2005 6:56 AM

To Karen:
"I remember when journalists prided themselves on challenging those in power, questioning societal assumptions, championing social justice."

That's exactly what Temple is doing. Churchill's tenure has made him into an irresponsible "scholar" who, as a gatekeeper of knowledge for college students, has a greater position of power than any politician. We need to question the societal assumptions that create an atmosphere of hostility to truth, which is the surest means of championing social injustice.

Churchill is a fraud who impoverishes each of us.

Posted by Cerfer on June 7, 2005 7:27 AM

It is truly sad that it takes so long for the authorities to live up to their responsibilities. Mr. Churchill is a symptom of a much bigger problem in society. I urge the RMN to apply this same diligence to the british memo regarding President Bush's predetermined invasion of Iraq. Bush should be impeached for his conduct, and held responsible for all the lives, American and Iraqi, that have been lost but until the media forces people to face the truth about Bush's conduct, our goverment representatives will continue to run from their duty

Posted by Marie on June 7, 2005 7:31 AM

As a new reader, arriving from the East Coast, I find the RMN refreshing. After being bombarded by the NYT and Washington Post, RMN will be my "paper of choice."

It certainly seems fair that Churchill's activities and claims be examined. Isn't that what journalists do? Criticizing this effort because bigger fish have not been held to account is like saying we can't criticize Pres Bush because we haven't criticized George Wahington. By that standard we would never get anything done.

I, for one, enjoy the dialogue. Keep it up.

Posted by Skypilot on June 7, 2005 7:47 AM

GREAT series...Mr. Churchill is a fraud, and is picking up lots of our taxpayer dollars to continue to be one. To all the anarchists out there, Mr. Churchill included, did they ever consider that the reason they were able to purchase their house is because of the open and efficient FINANCIAL MARKETS that we have in this country? Nah...didn't think so.

Posted by Mark on June 7, 2005 7:56 AM

To get the facts, go to the URL for the truth!

Posted by Blue Dog on June 7, 2005 8:00 AM

There has been a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth by Prof. Churchill's supporters that his rights of "free speech" are being suppressed and that we should be focusing on larger issues. Let's be honest-- the conflict over Churchill's scholarship, ethnicity, or opinions has very little to do with those issues and everything to do with his political leanings. It is highly doubtful that 200 CU professors would be defending him if he had been a conservative who said something equally controversial-- it is far more likely that same ad would be calling for him to be fired for spreading hate speech.

Posted by Chris on June 7, 2005 8:13 AM

All I can say is "When will CU get rid of this a**hole?"

He's obviously guilty of sloppy scholarly practices, and that should be enough to discredit him.

Posted by Ginger Snap on June 7, 2005 8:25 AM

well one person has the right idea...the news and corporate media should take her lead .. "Cohen won't talk publicly about what happened. She remains focused on her own work. She will answer the questions of the CU investigative committee, but no others."

and once again, i encourage the "News" to elaborate on the issues, not some stupid figures that may/may not be exact

Posted by ben taylor on June 7, 2005 8:29 AM

The First Amendment does NOT provide protection for advocating violence against the United States government. That part of Churchill's words are not protected by the First Amendment.
Churchill's compadre, LeRoy Lemos, one of the seven up on charges of censoring the Italians in their parade honoring Christopher Columbus, is a twice-convicted felon and wife beater allowed to censor women after violating state sunshine laws by refusing to release DCTV board meeting minutes, and then having an underling assault the woman who protested that violation to the Denver City Council -- me.

I was an award-winning investigative newspaper reporter for 15 years, published in papers in Kansas and Colorado, and making a huge difference in public education on the subject of child sexual abuse and related topics. My tv show on public access, "The Burning Cradle," has been repeatedly censored after Lemos and Co. lied their asses off in court to establish a restraining order against me.
Lemos beat his wife into unconsciousness, and the person who invited him to the DCTV board should have THEIR HEAD examined.
This group is not about freedom of speech. They are about censoring and silencing anyone they disagree with on their drive to gain power. They are not in favor ofallowing opposing viewpoints to also be expressed.
Lemos is a filthy lying sexist pig. He's a friend of Ward Churchill.
The discussions about freedom of speech are critical and there need to be more of them in greater detail because the general public has a very ignorant understanding of what the real parameters of those American rights really are. Fred Brown's continuing column on the subject is heavily needed.
Carry on, dudes and dudettes. Take down that liar. Thank you for continuing in the face of Churchill's lies, slings, arrows and outright plagiarism.
Paula Rhoads Hook
Denver
303-371-6204

Posted by Paula Hook on June 7, 2005 8:31 AM

It is truly a sad day when the journalism, of what is supposed to be a respectable paper, focuses on a man who wrote an essay. It's as if RMN has some sort of personal vendetta against Churchill. It's like a police officer giving out a traffic violation while one block away someone is being murdered. Respectable news agencies focus on what is important. Non-Respectable news agencies focus any garbage that will sell papers. Exactly like Tabloids. It is quite obvious what RMN has chosen.

Posted by Mark on June 7, 2005 8:35 AM

Yeahhhhh Hawwwwhhhh!
Lit's git all dem liberals outta da universities. We'll put robots dat are programed by the Bush administration to teach what we want dem kids to know. Put up peoples who don't ask no questions in dem classrooms. Just minless robots. Just like FOX and other news agencies.
Yeahhhhhh Hawwwwhhhh!

Posted by George W. on June 7, 2005 8:41 AM

I would like to see the RMN examine some of Churchill's other claims, such as the 1876 treaty being broken by the U.S, the RMN stoking the flames that led to the Sand Creek Massacre, the theft of Ruby Valley, etc, and see if they determine those are fraudelent.

Of course, the RMN knows that an "expose" on any of those issues would not fit into their agenda so they remain silent about those particular aspects of Churchill's work.

I'll give one example in which Charlie Brennan has knowingly distorted an altercation that occurred in California. He reported that Churchill attacked Carol Standing Elk and relied on the word of Carol Standing Elk and a report from the Lakota Times. Well, there was a substantially different version printed in News from Indian Country at the same time and is also available online.

The problem for Brennan is that it reported that Carol Standing Elk was the attacker, from a reporter that actually witnessed the attack and not recounted as in the case of the Lakota Times.

What Brennan also won't reveal is that the Lakota Times, at the time, was owned by Tim Giago who was siding with the Minneapolis faction of the American Indian Movement. Brennan and the RMN won't include those eyewitness version of events because it also conflicts with the the events are they are trying to revise them.

In the Friday edition, look for distortions when it comes to the issue of enrollment in Indian Country. The RMN will not reveal any of the conflict occurring between the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the Keewtoowah band because it might give the readers an idea as to why the Keewtoowah band has been contradicting and revising it's stand on Churchills associate membership. I might just inform the readers myself before the issue hits the stands so they can read it with a better understanding and a contextualization that the RMN doesn't want them to have.

Posted by Ck on June 7, 2005 8:54 AM

I just moved here from Chicago recently and I just have to laugh at some of the people here in Denver. All of the news agencies reporting on Churchill. All these right wing redneck yuppies out here upset at what he wrote in an essay. An essay I'm sure over 95% of you have never read in its entirety. You even have the govenor, Bill "let's discriminate" Owens, speaking about it. If Churchill is the only thing that gets people worked up out here then my time here will be very boring. Thankfully I'm only here for a short time.
Oh by the way... The U.S. is in a war with Iraq. A war that was never justified. Where are these stories and where is Lee Harvey when you need him?

Posted by Mark on June 7, 2005 9:09 AM

and does anyone remember why, again, this all started? yes...because of his rhetoric surrounding the "little eichmann" comment. where is talk about that now? come on, arent we STILL angry that he made this comparision and that this "liberal" university backed it up by defending his rheotric?? why back down on that now and move to the blatant racism surrounding his heritage.

colorado.indymedia.org - democracynow.org for talk on issues, not bullshit spin-cycling by corporate owned media

Posted by ghost of spinster past on June 7, 2005 9:13 AM

Ward Churchill is an "A-hole" and he's getting exactly what an "A-hole" deserves. I'm glad that the News is stepping up and pulling his punk card. It's good to see that passion still exists in America. If Mr. Churchill is free to put the United States on trial, then the media is free to put him on trial. Frankly, I expected this from the Post, but I'm glad that it's getting done. Good on ya, RMN.

Posted by Larry Gombos on June 7, 2005 10:29 AM

I don't understand why there are so many people who are opposed to this series. In my job, if I do something to 'rock the boat' I expect that I will be put under a microscope. I make sure before I do this that all my i's are dotted and t's are crossed to cover my butt. Ward 'Poser' Churchill did not do this and is now being dragged through the mud because of the decisions he made. Not just for the 9-11 essay but as this series points out, for a lifetime of fraudulent behavior. Let's not kid ourselves, this guy is a fake and he is teaching not only hatred but also misrepresenting facts to our youth at our flagship university. When do we say Enough!!!

Posted by mike on June 7, 2005 10:36 AM

An absolute fraud at a mediocre, overpriced university. Sounds like a good match to me!

Posted by Don Huebner on June 7, 2005 10:38 AM

As a faculty member myself, I consider Mr. Churchill to be an embarrassment to the profession. This series has done a terrific job of detailing the many ways this buffoon has defrauded his colleagues, coauthors, and students. I am sure C.U. would like nothing more than for this controversy to fade quietly away. I hope your reporters will keep on digging and prevent that from happening. In my opinion, Churchill stands as the poster boy for what goes wrong when affirmative action considerations are given greater weight than academic merit. Even now, Churchill's scholarly record is so weak that he would not receive an interview at a research university unless they considered him a "diversity" prize...not likely now that the full story of his alleged native American background has come out. The administrators at Colorado have gotten exactly what they deserved.

Posted by Monica Kern on June 7, 2005 10:58 AM

I suppose �free speech� now includes as broad a definition as one wishes to assign it. Plagiarism�fabrication�and dishonesty now seem to be included by at least 200 of our illustrious academe. I suppose it silly of me to think of a university as a �repository of knowledge�, I guess it is just a pretty place for radicalism, alcoholism, and sloppy scholarship. When will character mean as much as popularity? When will integrity return to academia? The ivory towers are looking more cardboard everyday; I hope CU will reverse the trend. Thank you RMN for taking this issue to task, I buy a paper everyday to follow-up on this story.

Posted by Jerry on June 7, 2005 12:02 PM

I was okay with Churchhill's right to his opinions on the 9/11 essay. I, for one, read the whole essay. At first I thought people were truly on a witchhunt of someone who would write something so controversial. But this issue has gone beyond this initial essay. He has a career of allegations of plagarism and mischaracterizations he must respond to. There is no place for a professor at CU or any educational institution who has committed plagarism and lied about his ancestry. It is time for Churchhill to acknowledge his mistakes and honorably resign from CU.

Posted by Linda on June 7, 2005 12:36 PM

Well done, RMN! Excellent detail, great research, and the uncovering of a fraud. Let's hope this leads to better things in academia for our kids.

By the way, the Denver Post smells.

Posted by Jim Chojnacki on June 7, 2005 12:52 PM

RMN:

Peter Boyles said it best: "[WC] is a grifter running the 'long con'. "

If going after this sociopathic jerk serves to make CU a better university someday, worth the effort. But not too important in the big scheme of things.

Now, please do an in-depth series about something far more important but perhaps less lucrative in terms of your newspaper sales, like the Downing Street Memo.

Posted by Grant on June 7, 2005 1:06 PM

Churchill is a fraud, completely bereft of integrity and legitimacy. I applaud the News for doing an in-depth investigation into his work. I honestly don't understand how he can defend himself with a straight face; he appears to have nothing but contempt for everyone and everything. I'm particularly confused that some people continue to defend him in spite of the mountain of evidence that he's fool. He's an embarrassment to academia and CU and should be fired.

Posted by Eric P on June 7, 2005 1:08 PM

Churchill's essay may have been the only original piece he ever written. RMN is correct in following the steps of man who has built a career on other's works and other's heritages. Let us not forget that CU is investigating him for a reason. A national institution does not have misconduct hearings on whim, especially on tenured professors.

Posted by elizabeth on June 7, 2005 1:13 PM

I find it shocking that Laura Frank and John Temple will admit (complain?) that they don't have all the facts from Ward Churchill, and yet describe the story as "Our findings". They present this story as if there were a balanced look into the facts that led to a valid conclusion. Today's story even admits that the accuser, Cohen, didn't talk to the author of the story. Cohen will only talk to the CU committee. Laura and John present this story as if it were a deep probing piece of journalism that determines the facts of the issue, without ever even talking to the accuser or getting all the facts from the accused. Nice work.

It is very clear that this is not a piece of journalism. It is attempt to poison the well. It is an op-ed piece that is trying to prejudice the outcome of the REAL tribunal who actually does have access to all of the facts. Laura and John should re-label this as an op-ed piece, and make sure to put plenty of "in our opinion" qualifiers in it. Then they should wait for the REAL tribunal who does have access to both Cohen and Churchill to release "Their findings". Then RMN can print a story that has a conclusion that is based upon all the facts.

Laura, John, while you are in the business of poisoning the well of official proceedings, why don't you publish as fact whether Michael Jackson is guilty or not? How about the publishing as fact the results of the Sadam Hussein trial while you are at it? Hacks.

Posted by Paul on June 7, 2005 1:21 PM

Okay...let's see a show of hands...who, here, is absolutely sick to death of hearing (or seeing) the name Ward Churchill all over the media? Let's count...Hmmmm...just as I suspected. EVERYBODY has raised their hand!

Please! I'd rather look at yet another Foley's ad, than see one more drop of ink wasted on this self-important doofus!

You're only egging him on...re-hashing the same story over, and over, in longer and longer form!

STOP!!!

Posted by Alan Vitello on June 7, 2005 2:27 PM

ward...just go. You hate the country, you hate your countrymen..go somewhere else. When you're fired I'm going to throw a party for you that day...you're not invited.

Liar.

Posted by Tom on June 7, 2005 3:26 PM

The series is laying out the facts so that the university committee that will decide on Churchill's job status can't pretend it doesn't have the facts. There is no way it can do anything but fire the guy.

What's amazing to me is that so many people show their lack of integrity by defending Churchill. Shows how impressionable and dishonest the hard left are these days.

Posted by Don on June 7, 2005 3:51 PM

The eagle (W.Churchill) is still walking because it's still full of crap! The University of Colorado haves a severe hemorrhage of reputation and respect because of your ongoing lies, arrogance and lack of humility. Get a real job! Something on a "Reality Show", teach the young on any Indian Reservation, feed the homeless, help Refugees obtain jobs, manage a Goodwill Center. Just do something Righteous for once in your life. More importantly, preserve the integrity of the University and leave now.

Posted by steve on June 7, 2005 5:18 PM

Yuu gotta love this guy. My Granma told me I'm an Indian. My buddy agrees with me. I've told the same lie for 40+ years, so it must be true. He's a modern day Walter Mitty, the Left's poster child for academic freedom? In absence of falsifying his employment app, this guy would be doing dishes in one of the Mayor's brew pubs.

Bye Bye Wardie!

Posted by Ken on June 7, 2005 6:40 PM

Two things are obvious:
Churchill is a fraud in almost everyway imaginable: Academically, ethically, personally and intellectually
And, the Rocky has done a great job exposing this fraud for what he is. The writing and research of this series rivals that of the Washington Post during the Watergate era. I hope the Pulitzer people are paying attention.

Posted by Bob on June 7, 2005 8:48 PM

Sadly, it took that Eichmann comments made by W Churchill to provide the catalyst for the scrutiny that he now faces. It is rather shameful that his supervisors and associates didn�t pick up on his misconduct a long time ago. Apparently all that Churchill had to do was self report being Native American and then develop the burned out angry radical persona and he was handed tenure. Shouting down your detractors and developing a goofy radical image to popularize yourself among the students is the perfect image to scare away your detractors. Personally I think the fake and fraud labels are unfair to Churchill. He appears to have been acting his entire career, albeit with someone else�s script. I don�t share the political spin that asserts that this is just another attempt by conservatives to advance their agenda. The facts will speak the truth on the matter, irregardless of a real or perceived ulterior motive. I noted that several of Churchill�s supporters admonish the paper to report on the �real� issues, as if matters of ethics and integrity in higher education are simply trite. Absolutely true to the Churchill�s persona are his hilarious attempts to accuse the RMN writers of factual fabrication. When the stuff hits the fan and your defenses are few, accuse the accusers. These defenses are truly vain attempts to smokescreen the issues. Churchill will receive due process and I can only hope that the colleagues who judge him will use some common sense and make some educated decisions based upon the facts and not some agenda. As for me, if I am to believe only a portion of what I have read, Churchill appears to be an arrogant and abusive pseudo-intellectual who has no business in the position that he holds. I�d like to see some more reporting on his art rip-off. I�ve been reading the RMN since the 70�s and in my humble opinion this story is Pulitzer material.

Posted by D Smith on June 7, 2005 10:39 PM

Vox Populi! Looks like the prevailing thought is that he's a fraud! Ward, you had a good run. It was great gig while it lasted but you had to step over the line and now you're done! We won't be sick of reading about you until about 15 minutes after you're fired. We're sick of your incoherent drivel! Good buy.
And thanks to the RMN for further evidence!

Posted by Sam on June 7, 2005 10:46 PM

For the record, WC is no academic's "poster child of academic freedom." The "trite" crimes against integrity, accuracy, and honesty are things that matter deeply in an academic community.

Academic freedom matters because it protects unpopular ideas, but when those ideas are lies, they do not deserve that protection. Churchill has harmed the intellectual community of this country worse than any neocon Luddite ever could. And frankly, I suspect that he is pleased about that. I don't see a lot of difference between him and the neocon haters tearing this country apart. Hate is not a political position.

Posted by Mick McA on June 8, 2005 6:28 AM

Ward Churchill's claim that he "ghost wrote" the essays he stole is truly a howler among noisy monkeys. First off, the "rewrite man" he keeps citing does not get the byline; he remains in the background like, say, as eminent a rewrite man as Maxwell Perkins gussying up Bill Faulkner and Tom Wolfe.

Second, it should be obvious that WC's untethered pen is barely literate. Read the email above. This is someone that other writers need editorial help from? In a pig's eye.

Significantly, the only proven "rewrite" he ever did was to edit another author's footnotes, without the author's permission, and in the process render them professionally suspect and embarrassing to the author. In an essay, by the way, that he published without the author's consent and in violation of Copyright Law.

Posted by MickMcA on June 8, 2005 6:39 AM

When is Churchill going to make all those "slam dunks?" He hasn't responded to any of the charges with anything but attacks against those making the charges. Please show more pictures of his idiot entourage with all those ridiculous posters. I love that crap. I guess that's how what you do with your time after you've earned a CU ethnic studies degree.

Posted by Doc on June 8, 2005 7:42 AM

Of course all the Bush bashers will circle the wagons to protect one of their own -- a liar and a fraud.... but comments about needing another "Lee Harvey" are not only stupid but patently illegal and subversive.
Get ready for the future. The Americans who love this country as it was founded are taking it back.
Exposing a fraud like WC is just part of a long overdue process. Thanks RMN

Posted by HenryF on June 8, 2005 8:07 AM

Churchill is not a sacred cow. Nor is Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech does not mean you can publish untruths, distort facts, misquote people, and rewrite history to serve a political agenda or racist vendetta. The sooner these "enlightened" college students get that through their thick, brainwashed skulls, the better off this country will be.

Posted by Otis Campbell on June 8, 2005 8:10 AM

I am posting here to proudly announce that we have approved honorary membership for Professor Ward Churchill in our tribe, the Flatulent Band of Rippawahs. We have bestowed upon him the Indian name "Broken Wind", as he is void of substance, and really stinks up the joint.

Posted by Wolf Breath on June 8, 2005 8:16 AM

Who but liberal Academia would even grant this guy an interview, let alone make him a department chair? He can't even write in complete sentences! And what a shock it is that the only following he has are immature students and knuckleheaded cheerleaders who are swayed by a self-styled moron who's trademarks are sunglasses, tom-toms, long hair with a racing stripe, and a profound hatred for all things American. Ward - bow out graciously, but wipe the spittle off the podium first.

Posted by Jimmy on June 8, 2005 8:30 AM

I recently had the pleasure of attending the CU graduation in May. Charming city, absolutely beautiful campus. However, it's a damn shame that a once great school is now reduced to a bastion of liberalism under siege on the front line of the culture war. How unfortunate that CU is reaping the whirlwind of those sacred tenets of Liberalism - Affirmative Action, Multiculturalism, and Diversity. Here's a tip for the administration and faculty - step back, remove the rose-colored glasses, take a deep breath, and send Ward packing. Then press on with re-instituting quality education. Make the school great again.

Posted by Grad Dad on June 8, 2005 8:44 AM

It would be interesting to know the number of students who, over the years, have taken courses prescribed by CU's "Ethnic Studies" department, and have come away with a completely revised and wrong-headed understanding of American and World History. And is it just CU?

Posted by Dion on June 8, 2005 9:20 AM

As an academic, I'd like to commend the Rocky Mountain News for this series, but I also caution that the verdict is not certain. Although I believe that the reporters built a strong case for Churchill's plagiarism and fabrication of evidence, and although I'm very glad Churchill doesn't teach at my institution, Churchill has "plausible deniability" on the plagiarism of the essay since he did not put his own name as the author of the plagiarized article. Elsewhere, he may argue that the cases of plagiarism and invented evidence were unintentional errors (though LaVelle's work makes that argument hard to sustain) or blame his ex-wife. While "the preponderance of evidence" clearly goes against Churchill, the university committee may choose to demand a higher standard of evidence ("proof beyond reasonable doubt") to recommend revocation of tenure in order to safeguard the freedom of faculty to say unpopular (in this case stupid, disgusting, .... pick your adjective!) things.

Unfortunately, Churchill's portraying of others' artwork as his own is not actionable since it doesn't relate to his scholarship. Likewise, his apparently dubious claim of Native American ancestry is irrelevant to the academic case, even if it was much of reason why Colorado gave him an academic appointment.

To the faculty and staff of Colorado, you have my sympathy for enduring a "Perfect Storm."

Posted by Jim on June 8, 2005 10:08 AM

I'd like the RMN to do a series on "where are they now" on the other ten or so professor candidates of verifiable Native American descent that WC beat out to get his job. This whole thing is amusing because it shows the tragic flaw of Affirmative Action systems. My perfect ending for this tragedy is for WC to sue CU for racial discrimination and win.

Posted by Steve on June 8, 2005 10:12 AM

I think we should all wait and see what the academic review comes up with. I find these stories interesting but have to take them with a grain of salt. If the RMN could not come up with something "interesting" there would be nothing to print. Before people starting calling Churchill names they should step back and allow the review process to take its course by people who understand the regulations on academic publishing.

Posted by Jody on June 8, 2005 10:20 AM

With the probability of a lot of extra time on his hands, might we expect these demon-exorcising works from Churchill?

On Lies Coming Home to Roost (Sometimes They Bite Back)

Working Backward From Hatred

The Ward fibbeth, and the Ward was taken away.

Posted by DaveS on June 8, 2005 12:19 PM

The RMN has done a TREMENDOUS job with the WC expose. Good sound reporting and a fair treatment of a mean-spirited, arrogant, self-righteous prig of a man who--by the way--clearly isn't qualifed to be the academic he touts himself to be.

I, for one, am sick of our friends of a more liberal persuasion who claim it is "just an essay". NO! It is a man, teaching impressionable young adults lies, half-truths and revisionist history, on our dime!

Enough!

Why aren't you gone yet Churchill? Don't let the door hit you in the fanny on the way out! Go already!

Posted by BillH on June 8, 2005 2:23 PM

I HAVE KEPT UP ON THE CHURCHILL STORIES, HAVING THE COLUIMS SENT TO ME AND HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN ANYTHING TILL HE WAS THERE AT CU FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. EVEN A SCHOOL BUS DRIVER GETS A BETTER BACKGROUND CHECK THAN HE DID. HE'S NO DIFFERENT THAN A LOT OF WHITE MEN, PROCLAIMING TO BE INDIAN FOR THE FREEBEES. NO WONDER MY INDIAN RELATIVES DON'T GO AROUND CLAIMING TO BE PART INDIAN WITH PEOPLE LIKE HIM AROUND. WONDER OF A DNA WOULD HELP SETTLE THE MATTER?

Posted by TUT S on June 8, 2005 3:10 PM

To Jim, the relevant standard of proof here is "preponderance of evidence." In other words, which conclusion is more plausible, even if only by a scintilla of evidence?

This standard of proof for research misconduct cases is set in the Code of Federal Regulations. CU's internal process specifically refers to the federal regulations as a component of its own process.

So if the committee does its job according to its mandate, it will follow the preponderance of evidence standard.

Fernando

Posted by Fernando on June 8, 2005 5:27 PM

This is quite possibly the worst media series I've ever seen. It is absolutely reprehensible that the Rocky Mountain News would stoop to the depths it has and continue to dredge up anything and everything in an attempt to slander Ward Churchill. While what he said was ignorant and extremely insensitive, it was his right under the principles of our nation. Get over it and move on.

Posted by Kirk on June 8, 2005 5:31 PM

When this controversy started to brew and I read the rash and irresponsible "little eichmans" remark, my first thought was that the guy should be fired for stupidity unbecoming a tenured professor.

As it developed, however, even discounting possible exaggeration by the media, I came to the conclusion that here was an example of a self-righteous propagandist, who would say anything to enhance his own position. I wondered how far this kind of attitude might go in the well-insulated academic community, so I checked out a site called noindoctrination.org.

I found the problem was much more widespread than just here in Colorado, and now I wonder.... how many "little goebbels" are there?

Posted by dick valentine on June 8, 2005 6:17 PM

I don't understand those of you who are so fooled by this guy's dishonesty that you don't believe it is news. I don't understand how someone can be so biased (either left or right) that they aren't willing to look at both sides

First of all, it's a story that has garnered a lot of interest - and the Rocky Mountain News wants to sell papers, they do that by writing about the things that are interesting. Secondly, Prof. Churchhill is using his professor position (paid by taxpayer's $) to communicate his version of the truth and appears to have done some unethical things - that seems worth investigating.

Posted by Chad on June 8, 2005 7:24 PM

To all of the whiners who are defending Churchill here (and there are very few), get something straight. No one here has brought up the "little Eichmanns" essay except yourselves. No one here, at CU, or at RMN has assailed or is attempting to curtail this prima donna's 1st amendment rights.

The issues here are SCHOLARSHIP, Churchill's misrepresentation of himself, academic fraud, history revision, plagiarism, and (unfortunately for CU), flawed academic policy. Quite frankly, all of American Academia is on trial here, and rightfully so. It's long overdue.

For too long, America-hating liberals have had their twisted way with America's young minds - and it starts way before college. Check out your kid's textbooks sometime. Observe a history class. Take a long hard look.

It needs to stop. Right now. Here. With Ward.

Posted by Mr. Peepers on June 8, 2005 8:23 PM

This comment is not about Churchill but rather the news reporting style. It is disappointing that the RMN chose to approach the issues involving Ward Churchill as a trial by media. The University of Colorado is conducting a thorough investigation of the allegations and the news writers of the RMN are out of place to report their conclusions. The series is beyond the realm of an editorial piece when the conclusions drawn are reported as factual deductions rather than expressing an opinion.

It also undermines any credence to the series with articles like John Temple's defending statements made by the RMN in "Ward Churchill responds to our series" printed June 6th. The he said/we said article is nothing more than sensational journalism. Reporters should report the news, not be part of the news.

Posted by SC on June 8, 2005 8:25 PM

Churchill isn't the only one at CU who's indoctrinating students at the taxpayer's expense:

http://noindoctrination.org/cgibin/display_record.cgi?uid=404

Posted by Scoops on June 8, 2005 8:34 PM

It's all George Bush's fault. If Al Gore had won, none of this would have happened.

Posted by Liberal Visionary on June 8, 2005 8:40 PM

Churchill is a bad apple who approves of violent retailiation. His opinions and 'scholarship' are so non-mainstream that knowledge of his article published years ago was just recently discovered.

However, I am interested in getting some examples of the "twisted history" being taught in American schools that has "tainted young minds." Seriously, I am.

Posted by skeptical Mom on June 8, 2005 8:47 PM

To those of you who are so quick to judge Ward C. may you be reminded that this man you so viciously verbally attack, once put his life on the line for YOU and your freedoms in Vietnam. He deserves the same respect all other Vietnam Vets have earned so late in their lives.

"Remember The Troops" doesn't that apply to ALL Soldiers old and young, who have fought or are fighting for our country? The forgotten heros?

Posted by steve&ellen on June 8, 2005 9:51 PM

Not when they preach the violent downfall of the U.S.

Posted by Sam on June 8, 2005 10:07 PM

On a national scale it was Bill O'Reilly who assisted in making the Churchill story public to a wider audience, but the folks who drove the story were and are today the talk show hosts at KHOW 630am here in Denver: Dan Caplis, Craig Silverman and Peter Boyles & at KOA 850 am: Gunny Bob Newman, Mike Rosen and Jon Caldara. And the excellent reporting by the reporters and columnists at the Rocky Mountain News. If it wasn't for all of these people whom I have mentioned there would not have been a story for Bill O'Reilly to report on.

Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman have personally served 'Freedom for Information' requests to a number of organizations (including the Univ. of Colorado at Boulder) here in Colorado to get documents that otherwise would have never seen the light of day.

When the Churchill story first broke O'Reilly tried to claim all the credit, but the fine listeners to talk radio and readers of the RMN here in Colorado know the real story.

Posted by AJ on June 8, 2005 10:13 PM

Unfortunately for Churchill he has become the poster child for academic fraud and the outing leftist professors all across America. Every day you hear another story about someone of Churchill's ilk.

Good news for parents and prospective students. Bad news for the whacked out radicals like Churchill and for the colleges & universities who hire such scum of the earths.

Posted by AJ on June 8, 2005 10:15 PM

Besides all the great coverage by our local TV, radio and newspapers here in Colorado there is one other source in the blogosphere where you will find all things Ward Churchill.

See: http://www.pirateballerina.com/index.php

Posted by AJ on June 8, 2005 10:19 PM

Ward Churchill's work in CU's ethnic studies department has been at the top of the standards for scholarship for the Ethnic Studies discipline. That is the real embarrassment for the academic community - that Ward Churchill is typical - and the real embarrassment for CU.

Look at the ravings of Emma Perez in defense of Churchill, filled with vaguely anti-semitic references to a cabal of "neo-cons" attacking Ward Churchill. Look at the the letter from the CU ethnic studies dept where they describe their mission not as discovering and disseminating truthful history but simply that of "counter[ing] the standard 'canon' of the humanities and social sciences".

That's not the mission of a academic dept, but the mission of a dept of propaganda.

Posted by SPQR on June 9, 2005 12:09 AM

Y'all still don't know what is going on!!!! No corporate owned media is going to tell you either.

Posted by Rev on June 9, 2005 1:05 AM

Say, didn't the Rocky's Vincent Carrol do a little fraud-busting on the Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu Tum a couple of years ago?

What the hell's going on here? Is it now legit to lie about one's background to advance one's own political agenda?

Hm.... I guess I'll have to re-do my own resume... I could stick in something about a Bronze Star... oh, I could cite my Native American background... Oh, and I gotta mention my PhD. from Northwestern Online College... no, make that Harvard...

Posted by Dick Valentine on June 9, 2005 3:39 AM

Let me get this straight. not only he, but his entire family, had been told since they were very young that they were of native descent...and since ward believed his parents...we are pointing the finger at him for claiming what he believes to be true?

how about the "news" goes and finds the parents and blame them for "lying" about their ancestry since this seems to be more in the direction of the root of this "problem" with an activist that simply critically analyzes american policy on many fronts...(oh and gets acquitted multiple times for standing up for basic human decency by blocking the celebration of a genocidal maniac every october in the state in which he lives). I believe those two points have a shitload more to do with why the post/news/corporate media "cares" so much about him all of a sudden.

Posted by ben taylor on June 9, 2005 7:24 AM

Here's a bit more evidence of WC's pattern of plagiarism.

I was reading the essay on his scholarship at PirateBallerina, and it provided a link to Churchill's own essay on Columbus. Having just read Kirkpatrick Sale's *The Conquest of Paradise,* a 1990 book that takes a very negative view of Columbus, I was curious to see how WC's "insights" of 1995 might dovetail with Sale's of 1990.

Sure enough. Sale's is only mentioned twice, in both cases fairly trivially. The second reference, tellingly, takes Sale's comments on Columbus' creating the institution of slavery and rephrases it to that it appears to be Sale's referring to WC's hobbyhorse of the hour, genocide. But that's minor compared to what happens in the first one.

WC quotes Sale's page 155. Fair enough. What happens next, however, is that he "quotes" Bartolome de las Casas three times to reinforce his own argument. That is, three large, block-indented quotations. He introduces them with the comment that las Casas' texts are " replete with accounts" of Spanish barbarity. He refers to las Casas' books by their Spanish titles, implying that he has read the originals (as his notes suggest, on microfilm).

The problem is, all three quotations, in the same English translations, with the same lacunae (those three dots, eh?), appear on pages 157 and 159 of Sale's book. In other words, WC simply lifts Sale's diligent scholarship off the page and pastes it into his own inflating opus.

This may seem trivial to a "civilian." Ask any academic scholar how trivial it is.

Posted by Mick McA on June 9, 2005 7:34 AM

Hold Churchill's feet to the fire!

He's too good at weasel-words to ever be pinned down verbally. We deserve to know the truth of what he did an didn't do, not only to hold him accountable, but so abuses of this kind aren't repeated at our universities.

Posted by Dave Tanton on June 9, 2005 8:20 AM

Let's see. The U.S. Army is guilty of spreading smallpox, Christopher Columbus is a "homicidal maniac", the government practices native-American genocide, Kerry won three purple hearts and 2 other medals in 4 months, Ted Kennedy isn't a lush, Rosie O'Doughnut has all the answers, Bill Clinton didn't lie or have sex, guns kill people by themselves, and Sen. Robert Byrd isn't a racist.

Repeat the lies often enough and they become fact. Joe Goebbels would be proud of the anti-American liberal propaganda machine.

Hey liberals, Ward is a sham and Bush won. Get over it.

Posted by Oracle on June 9, 2005 8:29 AM

Hey flag-humpers!

You lost Vietnam. You are losing Iraq. Despite the hype, Ward will be at CU for a very long time. Get over it.

Or better yet - sign up with the "can't-make-our-quotas" boyz and go take a bullet for Bush.

Posted by Cinderella on June 9, 2005 9:24 AM

WC is a fraud who represents neither the left nor the right. He's a fringe whacko and a con artist, no more, no less.

But as Mike Litwin and others are correct to warn us, this is indeed the "New McCarthyism". WC was charged, tried, convicted, and executed on talk radio by two lawyers-turned-professional-gossipers who have completely abandoned any sense of fairness and their avowed belief in the right of an accused to face his accusers and a jury of his peers. They should be ashamed of themselves. The rest of us should beware of gossip, hearsay, and sensationalism masquerading as �news�.

Posted by Grant on June 9, 2005 10:39 AM

Meanwhile in Bolivia... the Indians are winning!

"This Travel Warning is being issued to warn American citizens of continued political unrest in Bolivia. The Department of State has authorized the departure of non-emergency U.S. Embassy personnel and all eligible family members of U.S. Embassy personnel and urges all U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to Bolivia. This Travel Warning supersedes the Public Announcement issued June 1, 2005."

Posted by Indy on June 9, 2005 12:06 PM

What a waste of time on this Ward Churchill series. Is this ratings week or a slow news week? There's a war going on people and I want to hear about the WMD's that we went to war for. Get a grip RMN! Your guys are really starting to get boring and suck.

Posted by Anthony on June 9, 2005 12:57 PM

To those who insist on boiling this down to WC's right to express his opinion I ask, Is it really all about opinion? What if WC has been spewing his opinion that the Holocaust was a justifiable purging, that slavery was a justifiable economic model, and that the Trail of Tears was a justifiable relocation. Just opinions, right? He'd still be employed at CU, right? Those of you who fervently defend his right to his "little Eichman" opinion would equally defend those opinions as well.

Right?

Posted by DaveS on June 9, 2005 12:57 PM

Sorry Cinderella, but it's almost midnight and your fantasy world is about to return to reality. In the real world, free elections were held in Afghanistan and Iraq. Three of the biggest terrorist-sponsoring states (including Libya, which took itself out before we did) are history.

AQ is on the run and being rolled up everywhere on the planet, including California in the last two days. Not a single domestic attack since 9/11.

There isn't a chance in hell WC stays on at CU. That's thanks mainly to WC himself, but to RMN as well for dragging his fabricated history and fabricated scholarship into the light of day.

Welcome to reality.

Posted by DaveS on June 9, 2005 1:18 PM

So when you goin' down to the recruiting office Dave S? Or are you just declaring the war won so you don't have to go? C'mon, Dave, real men are doing two and three tours so your candy ass can sit around and write into the Rocky. The army desperately needs you. If the imperialists had won, the army would not be missing its goals every month.

http://www.army.com/enlist/

Walk yer talk, big man. Sign up today.

Please.

Posted by Genie on June 9, 2005 1:59 PM

Greetings from the Elders of the Northern European Band of the Keetowah!

Kudos for the genealogical piece today! It was really interesting, must've taken a while to put together. Even WC should be interested in that one..

It almost feel sorry for the guy, except for the persistent namecalling from apologists. If the guy had 3/16 the honor of an average person, he'd resign. Hasn't he done enough damage to CU? The guy claims to have a "slam dunk" for everything, but we'll never hear about it because the "corporate media" won't let him tell his side. Right! That is pure garbage (Caplis & Silverman offered D.Lane/WC equal time).

There actually are plenty of social injustices past & present w/o fabricating or exaggerating. The guy should either offer his systematic "slam dunk" responses to the inquiry, or CU should FIRE HIM so we can move on to more important topics.

Posted by Steve on June 9, 2005 2:13 PM

Isn't it telling that all of the left-wing Bush-hating losers, whackos, flag burners, and America Haters are defending Churchill?

Hey Cinderella (flag burner). We didn't lose in Vietnam, we left of our own accord. Iraq is a success (Free elections; 50,000 Iraqis have already signed up for security duty, and we're kicking insurgent ass).

Suggestion: Get a hand grenade, crawl up Michael Moore's butt, and pull the pin.

Congrats to RMN for a great expose'.

Posted by Oracle on June 9, 2005 2:17 PM

Anthony - the WMD is under Rosie O'Donnell's panites, along with Ward Churchill's credibility. Pack a lunch & go find it all moron.

Posted by Deep Throat on June 9, 2005 2:21 PM

It is dishonest to suggest, as some have, that the WC investigation is symptomatic of a �New McCarthyism.� The investigation is about various forms of fraud, plain and simple, and to characterize it otherwise is to not so subtly suggest that academics such as Fay Cohen, Russell Thornton, John LaVelle, Thomas Brown, and Peter Hoffer, among others, are right-wing ideologues. At least two of Wardo�s accusers are tribally enrolled Indians.

The �New McCarthyism� charge is a smear in the fashion of Wardo when he dismisses his critics by saying they are coming forward either for publicity or to damage his reputation. As the evidence mounts that Wardo is a fraud, he has become evermore belligerent. In Ward�s World everyone is wrong except Ward.

Posted by Bill on June 9, 2005 2:27 PM

Hey Steve, the Flag-humper!

Since you know so much about Vietnam, can you tell us where the word "Fragging" comes from?

Isn't that when an army's own men start shooting their officers because they are too scared to take ole Hamburger Hill for no good reason yet one more time?

Because the indigenous Vietmamese just kept coming till AmeriKKKa couldn't.

C'mon flag-humping Chicken Hawk. Recruiters are standing by and they so desperately need their phones to ring!!

Posted by Midnight Watch on June 9, 2005 3:05 PM

Why all the vulgar language from the liberals? (flagh**per?) Typical. If you hate the U.S.A. so much (Amerikkka????) you are free to leave. Or don't you have the guts to walk the talk?

Posted by Sam on June 9, 2005 3:14 PM

In the tradtion of WARD CHURCHILLl, the left wing morons here are shoveling up typical liberal distortion / revision / lies / about history.

THREE years AFTER we left Vietnam, it was overrun by NVA. We won EVERY battle fought, but thanks to the liberals in this country, we left. As a result, Communism took over, a hundred thousand more people died, and the killing fields of Cambodia became a reality.

Thanks again to John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and all the rest of the whining liberals who's REAL motive was COWARDICE.

Stick to the topic, liberals - Oh, I forgot - that would entail facing much more reality and facts that you can't seem to ever handle.

Posted by History Prof. on June 9, 2005 3:34 PM

Ward Churchill (aka "Shovelin' Bull) needs to do the right thing - exit quietly and retire on all the money he's stockpiled from shoveling BS for the last 30 years.

Don't worry Ward, you've seeded the planet with s enough left-wing America-hating anarchists to do your bidding for poesterity.

Posted by Chief Ben Crowpecker on June 9, 2005 3:40 PM

I can't figure out what y'all are talking about.

Chicken this, Liberal that?

One guess with which party Ward is registered?

Posted by Rev on June 9, 2005 3:47 PM

In response to Steve's posting on June 9, 2005 02:13 PM. Steve says Ward Churchill "should either offer his systematic "slam dunk" responses to the inquiry, or CU should FIRE HIM so we can move on to more important topics."

That's a great point! But Steve seems to have forgotten that the proceedings Ward Churchill and CU are currently involved in are CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. That means Steve, the staff of RMN, and everyone else have no idea how Churchill has "respond[ed] to the inquiry". Steve also seems to forget about WC's 50 page response that has never been viewed outside the inquiry. If it contains WC's so-called "Slam Dunks", we won't know until after the official inquiry releases their findings.

The fact that RMN doesn't have a clue as to what is going on behind the closed doors of the official inquiry doesn't stop them from releasing their own "findings" ahead of CU releasing the official findings. It is clear that RMN's editor John Temple believes that RMN can be the judge without ever having access to the facts presented in CU's official CLOSED HEARINGS! John Temple has a lot of balls to present this series as anything except an op-ed piece.

How about letting the fact finders who have access to everything, and have the authority to make the judgements, have a crack at Churchill before presenting so called "findings" as if they were facts?

Posted by Paul on June 9, 2005 4:07 PM

Genie,

Actually, I did serve my country. I am proud to say that I enlisted and gave 8 years to my country. I'm willing to bet that's 8 years more than you did. I am too old to enlist now. And whether or not I could or would enlist has absolutely nothing to do with my belief that the war on terror is just and necessary.

Time to climb back into your bottle.

Posted by DaveS on June 9, 2005 4:08 PM

Bill:

I am a liberal who would love to see WC fired, and I am hopeful that this will eventually happen.

The "New McCarthyism" has to do with the abandonment of the principle of due process in a country that was founded on this principle. People like Caplis and Silverman do not provide due process. They simply interview various people one at a time for the sake of their ratings and egos. And while I find Dr. Cohen to be very credible, WC has not been given an opportunity to confront her or his other accusers. Don't confuse this incessant talk radio gibbersih with due process and fairness.

All of this nastiness is symptomatic of where public discourse has gone in this country, in part fueled by the polarizing divisiveness on talk radio and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the Reagan era. It's a damned shame.

Posted by Grant on June 9, 2005 4:12 PM

I love how quick these narrowminded people are to call someone who supports the WOT and isn't (or is no longer) in the military a hypocrite.

My mind rests easy knowing that I not only took from my country but I also gave. That I didn't just benefit from the freedoms this country grants by birthright, but that I also defended those freedoms for Americans. Americans like Genie.

Have you served your country, Genie? Military? Peace Corps? Anything? No? Then perhaps it is you who should enlist.

Posted by DaveS on June 9, 2005 4:23 PM

Actually, it's a pretty easy formula. If you hate your country, then you wouldn't consider defending it. You would only trash it, and those who do.

That's exactly what WC is all about.

Posted by SmackBottom on June 9, 2005 4:43 PM

Kudos to RMN for great investigative reporting. The CU "factfinders" will make the final judgements - that's a given. HOWEVER - thanks to RMN, they're not going to be able to blow smoke up everyone's ass.

It's time for Liberal Academia to shed their bias, tear down the bunker, analyze the facts, accept the truth, and render sound judgement.

CU at Boulder was once a great school. It can be again - if common sense prevails.

Hey Grant - 1. The "nastiness" in this country is fed & fueled by morons who haven't gotten over the last 2 elections. Howard Dean, Whoopi Golberg, Rosie O'Donnel, Barbara Stresiand, Michael Moore, etc., etc., ad nauseum. The vitriol pouring out of liberals and assorted left-wing whackos has been non-stop. Bush won. Get over it.

Posted by Listening on June 9, 2005 4:47 PM

You left wing whiners have brought everything from Vietnam, to Reagan, to Iraq into this discussion - when all it's really about is that one of your own pathetic nutjobs has been exposed & now has his nuts cooking over the coals. Typical Liberals - avoid the issues, ignore the facts, change the subject, distort reality.

Is Ward guilty of lying about Genocide? Is he guilty of plagiarism? Is he guilty of Misrepresentation? Is he guilty of Mischaracterization? Is Ward an Indian?

RMN has done a great job of finding the facts. Let's hope the "Scholars" at CU aren't deliberating the meaning of "is"...

Posted by Reality on June 9, 2005 6:26 PM

Oh, yeah. The RMN is criticized for releasing its investigatory results from PUBLIC documents before the closed-door CU investigation is complete. How specious.

Oh, yeah. Here we are involved in a piddling academic fraud case when there are world events to be covered. How specious.

Oh, yeah. This is a First Amendment issue. How specious.

Oh, yeah. Every obfuscatory tactic available is being applied by his defenders.

Oh, yeah. The best defense is a good offense. So now Churchill has filed an academic fraud case against one of his critics.

Oh, yeah.

Posted by Dick Valentine on June 9, 2005 6:45 PM

If WLC can claim AA points for being American-Indian -- can I and my friends claim to be female TG African-Americans? We need the help. Thanks Ward-o -- you phony faker, leader of academia.

"Everyone is wrong -- except me!" -- Homer J. Simpson (another line WLC stole).

Posted by Bart on June 9, 2005 9:30 PM

The tenor of these emails is liberal vs. conservative with the assumption that Churchill is a liberal.

That assumption would be a mistake:

1. Churchill (and Colorado AIM) sided with the CIA in Nicaragua, urging U.S. support for the Contras against Sandinista defenders of Nicaragua's socialist government.

2. When Denver Police spy files were released to the surveilled, Natsu Saito apparently flew from Georgia to pick up the file on Leavenworth prisoner and FBI arch enemy Leonard Peltier, then flew back to Georgia. Saito later was hired by Churchill to be a professor in his ethnic studies department and became his latest wife.

3. Ward Churchill has served as Republican Russell Mean's speech writer, Means being the third leg of Colorado AIM along with Churchill and Glenn Morris.

4. In Mark Obmasik's terrific book on birding, he refers to a military facility in Arizona called Fort Huachuca where logging (and other intrusive activities) aren't allowed because it is an intelligence training facility. Its seclusion provides a habitat for the spotted owl. Churchill's published resume says he was trained there. Are we to suppose they're training intelligence personnel as well as truck drivers, which is what Churchill claims was his mission in Viet Nam?

Posted by Carol Kreck on June 9, 2005 10:53 PM

I smell straw.

Oh it you ol' Mr. Straw Man

Posted by Rev on June 10, 2005 1:03 AM

"The tenor of these emails is liberal vs. conservative with the assumption that Churchill is a liberal."

Uh, the tenor of these "postings" developed into a liberal vs. conservative thing because LIBERALS, anarchists, Bush-bashers, anti-militarists, flag-burners, and anti-American idiots are DEFENDING Churchill and his shoddy scholarship, and they're doing it by changing the subject and interjecting irrelevant political rhetoric into the debate.

Thank you for proving that point, Carol.

Posted by Rodney on June 10, 2005 8:40 AM

Clinton didn't have sex with "that woman", American Troops never entered Baghdad, Saddam is a benevolent leader, Bush stole the election, and Ward Churchill is a bonafide scholar.

Posted by Baghdad Bob on June 10, 2005 11:25 AM

I'm wondering how many innocent white Settlers and travelers were scalped, tortured, and murdered, and how many white women & children were kidnapped, enslaved, and raped by native Americans who considered ALL whites a threat. Someone needs to do some scholarly research and write about THAT holocaust.

Posted by Kenis on June 10, 2005 2:54 PM

Amusing. I just went back to the original posting on June 6th by Laurel Smith (scroll way up to the top:

"(snip) While thousands die in Iraq as the result of bad information from those in the government charged with getting it right, you nit-pick your way through the writings of a professor who had the gall to tell it the way he saw it. (snip)"

I notice she didn't use the phrase "the gall to tell the truth."

I wonder, if all this information from those in the government is "bad," from where is she getting her "good" information?

Perhaps from the likes of....?

Oh, never mind....

Posted by Dick Valentine on June 10, 2005 3:17 PM

Keep it up Rocky!

Some have commented here that they are tired of hearing about Ward Churchill. Well I'm tired of hearing leftist slime like Chief Ward and his supporters call for the death of people just like me, and my friends and family. As long as these freaks continue to call for "principled" killing of folks like me, I will continue to publicly call them out as the scum they are.

When fools like Churchill spew their vile filth without blow-back from decent people, they gain prestige and popularity. Rather than allowing them to continue teaching our nations youth, it's time for all civilized people, liberal and conservative alike, to relegate them back to the fringe where they belong.

Posted by John Docker on June 10, 2005 4:03 PM