Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on July 26, 2007, 06:49:23 PM
-
Surely not!
Such a fine, upstanding Native American wannabe wouldn't be fired for mere plagiarism or forged research, would he? What's a little forgery when one is attempting to champion a higher truth!
Nah, Churchill maintains that the actions by the University of Colorado are simply an attempt to shut him up, to violate his freedom of speech.
He'll appeal of course. If he is guilty I hope he loses....for the sake of common sense and the maintenance of intellectual honesty in our institutions of higher learning.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9424240/detail.html
-
Yes lets shut up everyone that voices opinions we find objectionable. If we can't fire him outright, let's find some legal loophole or pin something trivial like "plagiarism" on him. For freedom! America, **** yeah!
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes lets shut up everyone that voices opinions we find objectionable. If we can't fire him outright, let's find some legal loophole or pin something trivial like "plagiarism" on him. For freedom! America, **** yeah!
Yes, plagiarism by a college professor is really trivial. The guy is a proven chronic liar. Just the sort we want teaching the youth of the nation. You like him so much, get him a job teaching at a college in your country. We'll be glad to let you have him.
-
Blah Blah Blah..Gscholtz cannot change his stripes
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes lets shut up everyone that voices opinions we find objectionable.
no one is shutting him up. He'll simply have to do the talking on his own buck.
Do you really think that it is acceptable for the college professor to fake his research?
-
It sounds like no-one gave a **** until he pissed off the wrong people....then the witch hunt was on...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by mietla
no one is shutting him up. He'll simply have to do the talking on his own buck.
Do you really think that it is acceptable for the college professor to fake his research?
If he hates America its ok. Right?
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
It sounds like no-one gave a **** until he pissed off the wrong people....then the witch hunt was on...
Tronsky
That's the way most everything is.
-
Was wondering how you were using Winston Churchill is the present tense. And how you could call him a Native American. :confused: Heh heh...yeah.
-
I agree with trotsky but for different reasons... It is true that no one gave a crap till he went completely insane but to me that just proves that in American education...
If you are on the left... you almost have to murder someone for them to even get angry at you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
It sounds like no-one gave a **** until he pissed off the wrong people....then the witch hunt was on...
Tronsky
Exactly.
-
If you do some serious looking, you'll find that NOTHING Ward Churchill wrote was true. Further, nothing he said about himself was true. And finally, he got the job under false pretenses to begin with.
Yes, making stupid and inflammatory statements drew attention to him. He is the fool who is the sole author of those statements (rare for him, he usually steals statements for others, and then falsifies the rest). Had he not been such an arrogant fool and drawn attention to himself, he might never have been fired. That does not alter the fact that he never should have been hired to begin with. Nor does that alter the fact that he is scum, and has no business holding a paid position giving him the opportunity to influence students with lies.
-
Churchill first came to CU to work in the university's American Indian affirmative action program as an administrative assistant and later lectured on campus for more than a decade. In 1991, the university hired Churchill as a tenured professor in the communications department, even though he did not have a Ph.D.
The university bypassed its usual 6-year process to award tenure because administrators were anxious to have an American Indian on the faculty. But then some Indian groups began to question whether Churchill was actually an Indian after all, which didn't stop the university from appointing him chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department in 2002, again largely on the basis of his putative ethnicity. Churchill finally conceded in 2005, "I have never been confirmed as having one-quarter blood and never said I was."
Nonetheless, Churchill's whole resume is built on race. His official biography posted on CU's website mentions little else but his Indian-ness -- his tribal membership, his work on Indian causes and issues -- as if ethnicity sufficiently qualified him to teach at one of the top state universities in the country.
But apparently, from CU's perspective, ethnicity not only justified whom the university should hire but also the basis on which it should award degrees to some students. In 1997, the university created an Ethnic Studies Department, whose faculty Churchill joined. The department's mission, according to its website: "encourages participatory, experiential, student-centered learning and empowers students to move beyond existing social, cultural, and political paradigms to more inclusive paradigms in which they are the subjects of their own reality."
If it's possible to earn a B.A. in Ethnic Studies at CU after spending four years as the subject of one's own reality, should we really be surprised that the faculty teaching in those programs might create their own reality as well? Of course, that is exactly what Ward Churchill did.
Churchill's fraud was simple and straightforward: He invented facts, falsely claiming, for example, that the United States adopted a racial code to categorize Indians similar to the infamous Nuremburg Laws enacted by the Nazis. He misrepresented others' scholarship, alleging that one scholar had produced evidence that the U.S. Army gave smallpox-infected blankets to Indians in 1837 when the work he cited said nothing of the sort. He plagiarized, copying sections of a pamphlet by a Canadian environmental group in a piece he wrote on Canadian water issues without attribution. He also published articles under false names so that he could then cite them as independent sources for work he published under his own name.
But the University of Colorado has been engaged in perpetrating its own, albeit more subtle, fraud as well. When the university hires faculty members or admits students on the basis of skin color, when it grants degrees in pseudo-academic fields, when its obsession with "diversity" overrides its devotion to learning, it, too, is acting fraudulently. The Ward Churchills of the academic world could not exist without the complicity of the universities that hire them.
CU is by no means alone. A report entitled "How Many Ward Churchills?" by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni suggests, "In colleges and universities across the country, in both traditional disciplines and new-fangled programs, the classes offered and the faculty who teach them are displaying an ideological slant that is frequently as uniform as it is severe."
After the regents' decision to fire Churchill was announced, a group of CU students donned T-shirts proclaiming, "It's not about scholarship . . . It's about politics." The students meant the slogan as an indictment of the process that led to Churchill's firing. But the irony is the words more accurately describe why CU and many other colleges hire the likes of Ward Churchill in the first place.
Real winner, wasn't he?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes lets shut up everyone that voices opinions we find objectionable. If we can't fire him outright, let's find some legal loophole or pin something trivial like "plagiarism" on him. For freedom! America, **** yeah!
He called some of the World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns".
Naturally you are here defending him.
-
And naturally you defend the true or perceived Nazis. It's in your nature.
-
Originally posted by Viking
And naturally you defend the true or perceived Nazis. It's in your nature.
I take it from your post here that you agree with churchill? That in fact there were "little eichmans" in the WTC and they deserved to be killed in that manner?
-
Smarter liars and thieves don't call attention to themselves. I'm chalking this one up to his own stupidity.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I take it from your post here that you agree with churchill? That in fact there were "little eichmans" in the WTC and they deserved to be killed in that manner?
Naw, I don't, but I defend his right to voice his opinions.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Naw, I don't, but I defend his right to voice his opinions.
No one has prevented him from voicing his opinions. No one has suggested that he be prevented from voicing his opinions.
However, he has no right to hold a publicly funded position on the basis of lies, nor does he have the right to publish lies while using that publicly funded position (a position of trust mind you) as a base of operations.
-
And you don't see how starting a witch hunt on this guy will lead to a fear of voicing controversial opinions? From what I have read he has done nothing that at least 90% of the scientific community has done as well. Research is 90% theft of other ideas and 10% originality. That's how science works; by building on the work of others. And it seems to me it is the faculty that has broken the regulations by hiring him, not Mr Churchill himself.
-
Originally posted by Viking
And you don't see how starting a witch hunt on this guy will lead to a fear of voicing controversial opinions? From what I have read he has done nothing that at least 90% of the scientific community has done as well. Research is 90% theft of other ideas and 10% originality. That's how science works; by building on the work of others. And it seems to me it is the faculty that has broken the regulations by hiring him, not Mr Churchill himself.
No, I don't. Churchill is NOT a scientist. He has been found to have LIED to get his job, and to have LIED in his published works. If you are found to have LIED to get your job, AND to hold it, would you not expect to be fired? This clown was supposed to be a teacher! We need to pay this clown thousands of dollars a year to teach LIES? You cannot be serious. By your twisted "logic", Churchill's job should be protected, despite his lies and lack of qualifications to hold such a job, simply because he decided to make an bellybutton of himself and call murder victims Nazis. That is absurd. And stupid.
Oh, and as a person with at least 25% Indian heritage, and who has never used that heritage to gain preferential treatment, I find his use of fake heritage to further his "career" both disgusting and intolerable.
-
What did he lie about? Please post sources. I see a lot of accusations, but no corroborating evidence presented. That's what's known as a "which hunt".
-
Originally posted by Viking
What did he lie about? Please post sources. I see a lot of accusations, but no corroborating evidence presented. That's what's known as a "which hunt".
The term is "witch hunt". Read the article I posted. The Colorado Board of Regents had a thorough investigation done over several years, check their sources.
He lied about being part Indian.
He lied about other people's work.
He lied by fabricating work, attributing it to people who didn't exist, and then claiming it to be a valid source.
-
Oops, brain fart on the spelling.
That's my point. I see a lot of accusations, also by the CBR, but they only published their conclusions, not the corroborating evidence. Also the vote on his dismissal was not unanimous and the result was met by loud "boos" from people attending the hearing. I hope he'll sue them as he said he would.
The CBR started their "investigation" 6 years ago ... which coincides with his publication of his controversial paper. A coincidence I'm sure (sarcasm).
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill
An interesting fellow. Well educated. Most likely a psychopathethic liar, but still, interesting to learn about.
-
Maybe he could roadie for the Dixie Chicks?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Naw, I don't, but I defend his right to voice his opinions.
He is certainly entitled to his opinions and no one is going to try and stop him from doing that. Using his job as a platform for his opinions is a different situation however. That's not in his job description. His employer is certainly entitled to tell him to limit the opinon slinging to his own time and resources without claiming his position to bolster them.
-
I support his right to voice his opinions but...
He has to state that they are his opinions and not fact and.... I don't want to pay him to voice his opinions when he is getting paid to teach.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Viking
What did he lie about? Please post sources. I see a lot of accusations, but no corroborating evidence presented. That's what's known as a "which hunt".
take a look at his "original" art
http://michellemalkin.com/2005/02/25/another-bizarre-twist-in-the-ward-churchill-saga/