CU Churchill report: investigated for research misconduct

[robcon]

The Colorado University report has come out, and Churchill will be investigated for research misconduct, but not for teaching misconduct, or what he said about 9/11...

Conclusions:

"Professor Churchill has outraged the Colorado and national communities as a result of profoundly offensive, abusive, and misguided statements relating to the victims of the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks on America.

As repugnant as his statements are to many in the University community, however, they are protected by the First Amendment.

Allegations have been made that Professor Churchill has engaged in research misconduct; specifically, that he has engaged in plagiarism, misuse of others' work, falsification and fabrication of authority.

These allegations have sufficient merit to warrant referral to the University of Colorado at Boulder Standing Committee on Research Misconduct for further inquiry in accordance with prescribed procedures. The research misconduct procedures afford Professor Churchill an opportunity to review and to respond to the allegations before any determination is made. If the Committee determines that Professor Churchill engaged in research misconduct, the Committee is to make recommendations regarding dismissal or other disciplinary action.

Also referred to the Committee is the question of whether Churchill committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself to be American Indian to gain credibility, authority, and an audience by using an Indian voice for his scholarly writings and speeches.

Other issues brought to the attention of the reviewers, such as teaching misconduct, were not found to warrant action."

http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html

[Guckert]

1. Poor Bill O'Lielly. I guess he still has NO pull on any subject.

[rodeodance]

8. o'Liely had and has no idea of the unner workings of factulty governance

within a University setting.

[vpigrad]

2. They're still harassing him?

Don't those idiot repukes have anything better to do? They haven't found ANY wrongdoing yet.

[bpilgrim]

3. what will the FEDs do when the allegations demonstrated to be FALSE by the

'ACTIVIST' judges in this investigation, i wonder :shrug:

peace

[leveymg]

4. The charges seem pretty much trumped-up.

My understanding is that the "research misconduct" charge concerns an unattributed or inaccurate quotation. There was also a brouhaha about a painting he allegedly copied. There was talk about his being charged with plagiarism, even though art is not his professional field!

Gawd, what a stretch to get this guy. This may also have something to do with his being an effective critic of the FBI's dirty tricks operations against the Native American Movement and the Left in general.

[confludemocrat]

5. This rightfully should go nowhere, but

never underestimate the spinelessness of "liberal" academics, who think they have no stake in this fight and are ready at a moments notice to cave to hard-right pressure. We've seen it with these moderate/liberal Democrats on so many issues lately, anyone who thinks this university world is any less infested with academic-grade Alan Colmeses is sadly mistaken.

this part is especially utter bullshit:

"Also referred to the Committee is the question of whether Churchill committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself to be American Indian to gain credibility, authority, and an audience by using an Indian voice for his scholarly writings and speeches."

so this whitebread bastion of lilly-livered, new age, weak-kneed libs (or a politically-cowed representative sample of that kind) is going to pass judgement on whether or not this guy is Indian-enough to be their token Indian under the guise of looking into "research misconduct"?

A lynching pure and simple.

[doc05]

10. How do you

How do you explain Larry Summers then?

[scarletwoman]

17. Yep, "Indian enough" for the White Man. It's disgusting.

Does anyone ever notice the fact that it is ONLY Indians that are supposed to PROVE that they have a right to claim Indian heritage? Anybody else can just say they have Irish ancestry or German or Norwegian or French, or whatever, and that's fine. But if you say you have American Indian blood in your background, you're expected to PROVE it.

There is a particular irony in Churchill's case -- his claimed heritage is Cherokee/Creek. In the 1800's the indigenous people in the Southeastern portion of the country (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, etc.) were encouraged by the White government overlords to enroll, and it was this very enrollment process which was turned against them when they were force marched to Oklahoma by president Jackson (the "Trail of Tears"). Those tribal members who declined to be enrolled, and who subsequently hid out and avoided relocation, found themselves in the absurd position of not being able to "prove" themselves to be genuine Indians.

So, your ancestors survive genocide and relocation, but by White Man rules, you don't get to claim Indian ancestry because your ancestors didn't mark their names in the White Man's lists. It's ridiculous.

Churchill HAS been given "associate" membership of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees in Oklahoma. It gives him no voting rights in the tribe, since his ancestors weren't "enrolled", but it does recognize his blood heritage. A further irony resides in the fact that one of the reknowned "heroes" of the Cherokee nation, John Ross, had even LESS Indian blood "quantum" than Churchill!

Neither were Geronimo, Crazy Horse or Chief Joseph (of the Nez Pierce) "enrolled", btw. Enrollment and blood quantum are White Man's rules, just another facet of the Native genocide, just another method of divide and conquer.

Among the Indians in my own community, "one drop" of Indian blood -- if you actually walk the walk and honor their worldview -- is enough to be accepted as one of them. They know and embrace their own.

As you said, this is bullshit, and this is a "lynching". And I have to wonder: these White Men who are so quick to deny Curchill's claim to his Indian heritage -- are they equally willing to embrace him as one of THEM?

sw

[geek tragedy]

6. Sounds like they have the goods on him regarding the research fraud

Couldn't happen to a nicer fellow.

[robcon]

7. I understand the "research misconduct" allegatios are serious.

I don't think Churchill will last very long. There's not much tolerance for plagiarism and deception in universities.

[seriousstan]

9. what will the APOLOGISTS do when the allegations demonstrated to be TRUE

by the University of Colorado at Boulder Standing Committee on Research Misconduct?

"Allegations have been made that Professor Churchill has engaged in research misconduct; specifically, that he has engaged in plagiarism, misuse of others' work, falsification and fabrication of authority.

These allegations have sufficient merit to warrant referral to the University of Colorado at Boulder Standing Committee on Research Misconduct for further inquiry in accordance with prescribed procedures. The research misconduct procedures afford Professor Churchill an opportunity to review and to respond to the allegations before any determination is made. If the Committee determines that Professor Churchill engaged in research misconduct, the Committee is to make recommendations regarding dismissal or other disciplinary action.

Also referred to the Committee is the question of whether Churchill committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself to be American Indian to gain credibility, authority, and an audience by using an Indian voice for his scholarly writings and speeches."

[Metrix]

11. I see this as a way to take this controversy away from the regents

and make it an internal university matter, which it should always have been anyway. The radio lawyers won't have anything to flog day after day, and the whole thing goes quietly away. Churchill keeps his job.

The regents were threatened with recall by former Colorado Senate Republican majority leader John Andrews, a real nutjob. This is the company the anti-Churchill faction keeps:

John Andrews – former Republican majority leader, Colorado State Senate; KBDI (Denver PBS) commentator; Independence Institute (see Claremont Institute)
http://i2i.org/
Bill Owens – Governor of Colorado, sanctimonius prick
David Horowitz
Dave Kopel – Rocky Mountain News columnist; Independence Institute
Paul Campos – Rocky Mountain News columnist; professor, Univ. of Denver Law School
Vincent Carroll – Rocky Mountain News editorial page editor
Dave Harsanyi – Denver Post columnist; all-things-Israel commentator
John Caldara – KOA radio; KBDI (Denver PBS) commentator; Independence Institute
Bob Newman – KOA radio; GeoScope Group
Mike Rosen – KOA radio; Rocky Mountain News columnist; Independence Institute
Dan Caplis – KHOW radio; attorney; Right to Life
Craig Silverman – KHOW radio; attorney; all-purpose opportunist

[seriousstan]

14. After reading the originally posted article, including the evidence

for research misconduct, I think they have ample reason to investigate. These actions are seldom taken if the evidence doesn't lean HEAVILY toward conclusive.If you notice, the charged pertaining to constitutionally protected speech are not being addressed. Also, the issues of teaching misconduct are also not being addressed.

I highly doubt whole thing goes quietly away or he will keep his job.

P.S. I keep no company with any of the people you mentioned and I am anti-Churchill. I think he is a pseudo-intellectual fraud and all around ass.

[bpilgrim]

15. "These actions are seldom taken if" not in bush's america

stick around DU a while and you'll know exactly what i'm talking about.

and as revealed in the many discussions here on this very topic all the charges cited are trumped up differences of opinion at best and out right BS at worst like him not being an indian and trying to rip them off :crazy:

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[bpilgrim]

12. "the 'APOLOGISTS'" simply point out the holes and bias in the charges

there is nothing new posted there and they've all been throughly debunked right here on DU.

Thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNET's with their PAPER TRAILS and DU for giving us a SEARCH button ;->

I wonder if there will be any new 'charges' before they start since the current ones are all pretty lame and mostly obvious right-wing spin in the same vain as are current national dramatic distraction :shrug:

peace

[seriousstan]

16. Which charges are lame and debunked, that are being addressed.

They are only investigating ssues of research misconduct by Professor John LaVelle of the University of New Mexico, Professor Thomas Brown of Lamar University, Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University in Canada and Rhonda Kelly, the sister of Professor Churchill's late wife, Leah Renae Kelly.

They also are investigating whether Professor Churchill has attempted to gain a scholarly voice, credibility, and an audience for his scholarship by wrongfully asserting that he is an Indian.

That is all.

Which of these have been debunked and where?

[bpilgrim]

18. arguing about his blood purity for starters...

American Indian Movement of Colorado

Indeed, many of us concur with Professor Churchill’s views of the unjust occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; others believe in freedom of speech, especially in the academy; others of us understand that the persecution, even the murder, of Native Americans and their most vocal defenders is a norm in American history, and feel grave concern for Professor Churchill’s physical well being; others of us oppose the persecution of those whose “blood quantum” doesn’t meet the standards of modern day eugenicists.

source...
http://coloradoaim.org/wardpetition.htm

also the plagiarism was highly spun to make it appear that he made an exact copy of an existing work of art when what he really did was offer a stylized interpretation of an existing work.

and the other claim of he having similar ideas to an author that he wrote the introduction to of their book.

so far everything discussed here was exposed to be weak and trumped up.

thats why i was asking if they would introduce anything new... have you heard of anything new?

tia :hi:

[seriousstan]

19. The blood purity issue only arises in the context of him gaining

a scholarly voice, credibility, and an audience for his scholarship by wrongfully asserting that he is an Indian. I don't think it is innapropriate for someone who is using the tag of "indian" to profit to show proof of being one. Otherwise he is a fraud.

Your point about the artwork is moot, they are not even including that.

The plagiarism claim by Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University in Canada was upheld by the Dalhousie University legal counsel in 1997.

Churchill's misrepresentation of the General Allotment Act of 1887 as "imposed a formal eugenics code" that tribes themselves adopted by making blood quantum a requirement of membership" is easily debunked by simply reading the Act. http://www.swarthmore.edu/Humanities/kjohnso1/dawes.html


Churchill's misrepresentation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 as "that a person can be an "American Indian artist" only if he or she is "certifiably" of "one-quarter or more degree of Indian blood by birth." is also easily debunked by simply reading the Act.

http://www.doi.gov/iacb/iaca90.html

Perhaps you should read the entire article to further understand what they are going to investigate. You may find even more new items.

[bpilgrim]

20. the HATRED and SPIN of M$MW and right wing wackos

for the most part.

it's an old story and DU has chronicled it but many other examples of the neoCONs manufactured stories and talking points which are dutifully repeated.

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[seriousstan]

22. Well, I can see you have run out of excuses when confronted with fact.

Please show me the passages in the 2 Acts I linked that show proof of blood as being necessary.

I am beginning to think these things are not as debunked as you stated.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

13. rw microbe brains are distracted with schiavo

and can't follow this until bill and hannity tell them to

[hdaddy]

21. A lot of you guys are missing the point

The point is, the university was well aware of these allegations a long time ago and nothing came of it. The ONLY reason it is coming back now is because they don't like what he said and are digging around looking for an excuse to fire the guy. In the end, if he is fired, the REAL reason will be that he pissed off people by what he said and wrote. Not any research misconduct.