Ward Churchill prof
see ac suppress
format mess 919, see bak
see uber on smallpox
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/feb/12/nation/na-churchill12
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext
-=-=
-=-=
nick estes nat am st anti-commie YT 9/ 8/ 26
kia nyt obit
-=-=
interview 2014 long, see bak
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/31/in-search-of-ward-churchill/
JANUARY 31, 2014
In Search of Ward Churchill
by JOSHUA FRANK:{
It has been nearly nine years since Ward Churchill was the talk of Fox News and the target of a concerted campaign to remove him from his teaching post at the University of Colorado. Well, as many of you know, they were successful. No longer living in Colorado, he is still defending himself and his scholarship. I recently caught up with Ward to see why we haven’t heard much from him in recent years and if the right-wing (and liberal) assault on his character had finally forced him into retreat. – JF
Joshua Frank: Ward, your name hasn’t appeared on The O’Reilly Factor in a while. What’s been keeping you busy these days?
Ward Churchill: It’s been eight years since I was the principle focus of O’Reilly’s anally-compulsive attentions, Joshua, so your question covers a lot of ground. The university “investigation” of my work took up an ungodly amount of time during the first couple of years, of course, and after that there was the trial, the various appeals, and so on. The process of “exhausting my domestic remedies” wasn’t really wrapped up until early February 2013, when the U.S. supreme court finally denied cert on the preeminent legal question raised by my case: Whether a nonjudicial governmental body like a university board of trustees can be “quasi-judicially” immunized against the consequences of a unanimous jury verdict holding that the entity involved knowingly and deliberately violated the constitutional rights of a citizen for purely political reasons.
Add in the fact that I moved to Atlanta about a year ago, and that getting resituated down here after more than forty years in the Colorado/northern plains region turned out to be a lot more demanding than I’d anticipated, and the result is that, although I’ve invested a huge amount of time and energy doing research and writing since 2005, relatively little of it’s been for publication. Or at least not yet. The upshot is that I’ve got a half-dozen books in varying states of completion and, now that the smoke’s beginning to clear a bit on the legal front, I figure to finish them pretty much one after another, at a fairly regular rate, over the next couple of years or so. It’ll probably be more like three years before they’re all in print.
None of this, by the way, should be taken to mean that the so-called firestorm of controversy in which I was enveloped during the spring of 2005, or any of the ensuing academic/legal bullshit ever caused me to stop publishing altogether. A relatively low rate of publication for me is still a fair amount, which is to say that I’ve produced several major articles for journals and law reviews, a half-dozen book chapters, an essay-length entry for The Encyclopedia of the American Indian, a batch of intros, prefaces, and forewords to books like Stephan Sheehi’s Islamophobia and Daniel Burton-Rose’s Creating a Movement with Teeth, and a few other odds and ends since then. I guess you could even say I managed to come out with a book, if you want to count the double-header I did with Antonia Darder, organized and edited by Pierre Orelus under the title A Decolonizing Encounter in 2012.
Right now, I’m finishing up a chapter for an upcoming book coedited by Akinyele Umoja and Charles Jones on the late Kwame Ture. I suppose it bears mentioning that Kwame was far better known in the U.S. as Stokely Carmichael, the guy who popularized the term “Black Power” back in 1967. My piece concerns his relationship with and influence upon the American Indian liberation struggle, particularly during the 1970s and ’80s. I also just finished a shorter piece on the Lynne Stewart case and the broader issue of compassionate release for terminally ill political prisoners that was to run in 4Struggle Magazine, to which I’ve lately agreed to be a regular contributor. Lynne was just released, though, so I expect that one is destined for the circular file. Maybe I’ll end up reworking it at some point, because the broader issue hasn’t exactly gone away.
JF: I notice you made no mention of public speaking. You used to do quite a lot of it, as I recall. Do you still?
WC: Nowhere near as much as I was doing prior to 2005. That, in part, is because I’ve been administratively blacklisted on campuses nationwide. There’ve been a fair number of instances in which I’ve been lined up by faculty and/or students to deliver a lecture and college or university presidents have directly intervened to prevent the event from happening. In a few cases, the organizers took such abridgments of their own intellectual rights seriously enough to force the issue and staged the events anyway, but usually not. The meekness with which tenured faculty members have typically submitted to administrative dictates in situations like this has been quite enlightening, and speaks volumes to the state of “academic freedom” in the contemporary U.S.
Both politically and psychologically, it’s of course been necessary that the folks I’ve just described, especially those claiming a liberal pedigree, advance some other, more palatable explanation of their behavior and its implications. Most often, this has taken the form of their citing some supposed defect in my scholarship and/or my “abrasive style,” either or both of which were ostensibly pointed out to them after their invitation was extended, causing them to rethink the propriety of offering me a forum in a campus setting imbued with such lofty standards of scholarship and collegiality as their own. In the name of something like “quality control,” then, preserving the “academic integrity” of their institutions leaves them no alternative but to concur—always with the utmost reluctance, of course—and only in this particular instance, mind you—with the administration’s preemption of students’ right to hear and assess whatever I might have to say and customary faculty prerogatives in the bargain.....
==
https://www.thenation.com/article/free-speech-fights/
HIGHER EDUCATION EDITORIAL MARCH 7, 2005 ISSUE
Free-Speech Fights
Rummaging through Yale University's library shelves in early 2001 to prepare a talk on news media and genocide, I came across a study of nineteenth-century Colorado newspapers by Ward Churchill.
By Bruce Shapiro FEBRUARY 17,2005
Rummaging through Yale University’s library shelves in early 2001 to prepare a talk on news media and genocide, I came across a study of nineteenth-century Colorado newspapers by Ward Churchill. His research steered me to a chilling 1891 editorial in the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer by L. Frank Baum, future author of The Wizard of Oz, calling for “the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians.”
In the small fields of Native American history and genocide studies, Churchill is a figure respected enough to have contributed to the authoritative Encyclopedia of Genocide and divisive enough that fellow scholars debate his conclusions. It is no discredit to Churchill’s scholarship to say that his broader political writing–including the now notorious 9/11 essay that became On the Justice of Roosting Chickens–is uniformly hackneyed and filled with adolescent delight in provocation for its own sake (like his grotesque moral hairsplitting in hinting that a stockbroker is a more legitimate target for Al Qaeda than a janitor).
The truth is, though, that neither Churchill’s historical studies nor his sectarian harangues have much to do with why his name now roils two college campuses 1,700 miles apart. What happened reveals a basic dynamic behind campus free-speech fights. Churchill, who teaches at the University of Colorado, was invited to speak on Native American issues at Hamilton College in upstate New York. His host was Hamilton’s Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society and Culture, which last fall had invited Susan Rosenberg, the Weather Underground conspirator pardoned by Bill Clinton, to teach a one-month writing course, until protest threats by police led her to withdraw. Primed by the Rosenberg spat, a Hamilton political scientist critical of Kirkland’s penchant for in-your-face guests Googled the spring speaker list. Up came Churchill’s noxious “little Eichmanns” quote.
The Hamilton student newspaper broke the story on January 21. At the urging of college president Joan Hinde Stewart, Kirkland’s director, Nancy Rabinowitz, changed Churchill’s forum to a panel on the limits of dissent. Stewart said she would defend Churchill’s right to speak but promised to “review” the Kirkland Project itself. On January 26 the story made the Syracuse Post-Standard and by mid-morning was blasted across the conservative website littlegreenfootballs.com–soon followed by a reader’s suggestion that Churchill get “a fire ax to the back of the skull.” By January 28 it was on the Wall Street Journal editorial page; that night, The O’Reilly Factor ran with it, featuring a justifiably distressed Hamilton student whose father had died at the World Trade Center. The host called on viewers to e-mail the college and on alumni to withhold contributions. Over the next week Bill O’Reilly devoted daily segments to Hamilton College and Churchill. Factual accuracy went out the window. On February 1, O’Reilly guest David Horowitz painted Hamilton as a repressively left-wing institution, declaring, “The students there can only identify one conservative on the faculty.” Students, he told O’Reilly, had twice invited him to speak at Hamilton. “It’s not like the faculty brought me up there.” In fact, according to Horowitz’s own blog, he visited Hamilton in 2002 at the invitation of historian Maurice Isserman; “Hamilton College scores better than your average school in terms of diversity of faculty views,” Horowitz wrote at the time. By February 5, after a raft of threats to the college and to Churchill himself, Stewart canceled Churchill’s talk. The University of Colorado, pressured by Governor Bill Owens, secured Churchill’s resignation as chair of its ethnic studies program.
In just a few days, a parochial argument at a small college turned into a national banquet for right-wingers hungry for post-Kerry culture enemies. Hamilton College stepped into a well-funded national campaign to rein in outspoken faculty:“professors who hate America,” as Horowitz and Daniel Pipes call distinguished scholars like historians Eric Foner of Columbia and Glenda Gilmore of Yale because they criticize the Iraq War. Invective flies out on the unprecedented hysteria transmission-belt of Internet and right-wing broadcasters. Throw a professor’s antiwar speech into the hopper and within hours you have menace to donations, tub-thumping by politicians and a stream of what Gilmore experienced last year: “death threats and rape wishes.”
What’s worrisome is not that these professors will back down but that the universities will–like Hamilton–become fearful of granting a platform to controversial speakers. O’Reilly & Co. smelled red meat because of Hamilton’s obvious uncertainty: The school’s willingness to yield in the face of attack (let’s review the program and change the topic) told them to keep pushing.
Is Ward Churchill persecuted when reasonable people–like that still-grieving Hamilton student–take offense at his self-marginalizing writing? No. But what happened at Hamilton is that a campus debate over a provocative speaker was hijacked and exploited. Now at the University of Colorado, this tenured faculty member’s writings are being subjected to a line-by-line review for evidence of academic malfeasance solely as a punishment for his political statements. Thanks to O’Reilly and his cohorts, Churchill gained unearned fame. But what is happening in Boulder should frighten all scholars regardless of politics.
Bruce ShapiroBruce Shapiro, a contributing editor to The Nation, is executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma.
==
Bill O’Reilly, Ward Churchill, and Hamilton College
Why did Bill O’Reilly have Ward Churchill on “The O’Reilly Factor” last Tuesday night? For several days this week, Mr. O’Reilly attacked Hamilton College for inviting Ward Churchill to speak on its campus. Because of Mr. Churchill’s offensive comments about the victims of the 9-11 attacks, Mr. O’Reilly said it was outrageous and unacceptable for anyone to give him a forum. Night after night, Mr. O’Reilly repeated this message. He urged alumni and other donors to withhold contributions to Hamilton. He broadcast the college’s telephone number and its president’s E-Mail address, urging his viewers to contact the president and insist that she cancel Mr. Churchill’s appearance. On Tuesday, after the college and the panelists had received over a hundred threats of violence, the president did cancel the event. But on last Tuesday evening, “The O’Reilly Factor” featured a taped interview with Ward Churchill. And Mr. O’Reilly said he had extended an invitation to Professor Churchill to appear on his show. Mr. Churchill said he’d think about it. Here’s what I want to know: if it’s a bad thing for Hamilton to permit Ward Churchill to speak to an audience of a few dozen students, why is it a good thing for Bill O’Reilly to give Mr. Churchill a national audience on the Fox Network? If Mr. Churchill doesn’t deserve a forum, why did Mr. O’Reilly offer him one? And here’s my answer: it wasn’t wrong for Hamilton to have invited him to speak. It was completely right. Hamilton had proposed that Mr. Churchill appear on a panel entitled “The Limits of Dissent.”
Two Hamilton faculty members would have analyzed what Mr. Churchill said, questioning his assertions and insisting that he explain and defend them. Then Hamilton students could have discussed and evaluated the arguments they had heard. That’s part of what my colleagues and I try to do. We give our students an opportunity to examine ideas and claims -- outrageous and far-fetched ideas as well as familiar ideas -- so that students can learn to think critically and independently. To give them that opportunity, the college invites a wide variety of people -- academics, researchers, writers, politicians, and other public figures – to our campus. As the Hamilton College catalog says, “The College expects its students to develop the ability to read, observe and listen with critical perception, and to think, write, and speak with clarity, understanding and precision. Students should develop their appreciation for inquiry, combined with the confidence to - 2 - evaluate arguments and to defend their own positions. They should learn to question creatively, derive information from and analyze data, and formulate hypotheses. They should recognize the limits of factual information and become attuned to how such information can be used and misused. Above all, students should develop respect for intellectual and cultural diversity because such respect promotes free and open inquiry, independent thought, and mutual understanding.” Although I like to think Hamilton College is particularly good at teaching students to engage in this kind of free and open inquiry, we’re not the only institution that does. Most American colleges and universities try to teach it, because critical inquiry lies at the core of our mission. It’s important to our society that we do it, because people who learn to think critically can make good decisions in their lives as citizens.
What Mr. O’Reilly does on “The O’Reilly Factor” is a show business parody of what we do. He interviews people who disagree with him, but he bullies them, cuts them off when they try to speak, and brackets their utterances with his own. Although he calls his program a “No-Spin Zone,” it’s really just the opposite, a source not of information but of distortion and disinformation. When Mr. O’Reilly began his attack on Hamilton College, most of us here didn’t understand why he had singled out out a small liberal arts college in a small village in upstate New York. But now we realize that although we are today’s target, Mr. O’Reilly’s objective is much bigger. He is leading an assault against freedom of inquiry and expression wherever they exist on American college and university campuses. His movement is gathering strength, and it behooves anyone in the United States who values free speech and thought to join us in resisting it. John H. O’Neill Edmund A. LeFevre Professor of English Hamilton College 198 College Hill Road Clinton, New York 13323 joneill@hamilton.edu Home Telephone: 315-853-3145 Mobile: 315-525-0883
==
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colo-Regents-Vote-to-Fire/17992
The Chronicle of Higher Education
August 3, 2007 Friday
Colo. Regents Vote to Fire Ward Churchill
BYLINE: JOHN GRAVOIS
SECTION: THE FACULTY; Pg. 1 Vol. 53 No. 48
Nearly six years after Ward Churchill compared some American victims of terrorism to Nazi bureaucrats, the
Board of Regents of the University of Colorado has voted to fire him. But the controversial ethnic-studies
professor says he is "ready to roll" in the next arena of his struggle with the university: a court of law.
According to university administrators, it was findings that Mr. Churchill had committed research misconduct --
and not the notoriety of his opinions -- that fueled the decision last week.
In a news release that appeared on the university's Web site just moments after the regents' 8-to-1 vote, the
officials said that Mr. Churchill's record "shows a pattern of serious, repeated, and deliberate research misconduct
that fell below the minimum stand [sic] of professional integrity, involving fabrication, falsification, improper
citation, and plagiarism."
"The university's review of Professor Churchill focused on his professional activities, not his statements about
victims of September 11, 2001," the statement said.
"This was someone who created fraudulent research and was caught," said Hank Brown, president of the
University of Colorado system, in an interview. "The university's efforts were focused solely around that."
However, some of Mr. Churchill's supporters -- which include the American Civil Liberties Union and the local
chapter of the American Association of University Professors -- say the "poisoned atmosphere" surrounding
the professor in Colorado made it impossible for him to receive a fair hearing. Other supporters, along with
Churchill himself, say that the university's findings of academic misconduct were just a pretext for retaliating
against him for his views.
"Once you take away this carefully manufactured illusion of due process," said Mr. Churchill in an interview last
week, "there's nothing left but the political speech."
Mr. Churchill and his lawyer, David Lane, filed a lawsuit against the university the day after the decision, asking
for damages and reinstatement.
From Comment to Conduct
For the Board of Regents, the vote to dismiss the hugely controversial professor was the culmination of a day of
deliberations. Their closed discussion went on an hour and a half longer than expected, adding a last flutter of
suspense before yielding an outcome that many saw as inevitable.
64
For the university, the vote represented the end of a two-and-a-half-year series of investigations into Mr.
Churchill's speech, scholarship, and conduct.
Those investigations started because of a public-relations crisis. Mr. Churchill was propelled into the national
spotlight in early 2005, when the campus newspaper at Hamilton College, in New York State, where he was
scheduled to give a speech, reported that he had once referred to the office workers killed in the World Trade
Center on September 11, 2001, as "little Eichmanns."
That incendiary remark, which instantly became Mr. Churchill's calling card in the press, traveled like wildfire
through the conservative blogosphere and traditional news media. Before long, Mr. Churchill had become nightly
fodder for Bill O'Reilly's Fox News talk show.
After threats of violence began pouring in to Hamilton College, Mr. Churchill's speech there was canceled. And
when politicians in Mr. Churchill's home state of Colorado began calling for his ouster, the interim chancellor of
the University of Colorado at Boulder, where Mr. Churchill was on the faculty, announced that there would be an
investigation into the professor's work to see whether he "may have overstepped his bounds."
That first investigation -- carried out by the interim chancellor and two deans -- found that Mr. Churchill's speech
was protected by the First Amendment. However, it also turned up pre-existing allegations of research
misconduct, which set in motion another, more substantial review of the professor's work.
In May 2006 a special investigative committee composed of three professors from Boulder and two outside
professors released a 124-page report that found instances of fabricated evidence, improper citation, and
plagiarism in Mr. Churchill's scholarship. That report, which was followed by several other steps (see timeline),
paved the way for Mr. Brown to recommend to the Board of Regents in July that Mr. Churchill be fired.
In its May 2006 report, the committee said that it was uneasy about the timing of the special attention given to Mr.
Churchill's scholarship, which had been prompted by his sudden public infamy. But the committee reasoned
through its uneasiness with a law-enforcement metaphor.
"To use an analogy," the committee wrote, "a motorist who is stopped and ticketed for speeding because the
police officer was offended by the contents of her bumper sticker, and who otherwise would have been sent away
with a warning, is still guilty of speeding, even if the officer's motive for punishing the speeder was the offense
taken to the speeder's exercise of her right to free speech.
"No court would consider the improper motive of the police officer to constitute a defense to speeding, however
protected by legal free-speech guarantees the contents of the bumper sticker might be."
Grading the Investigators
In the weeks and months leading up to the Board of Regents' vote, several supporters of Mr. Churchill turned their
own scrutiny on the investigative committee's report.
65
Eric Cheyfitz, a professor of American studies at Cornell University, was among a handful of professors
supporting Mr. Churchill who drafted a response to the report, accusing the committee itself of research
misconduct. The group criticized the committee for not including experts in Mr. Churchill's field.
Mr. Cheyfitz said that the committee relied too much, in its assessments of Mr. Churchill's research, on the work
of scholars who have had longstanding feuds with Mr. Churchill.
The report focuses on Mr. Churchill's accounts of several events in the history of U.S. relations with Native
Americans. According to Mr. Cheyfitz, who testified before one of the university committees investigating Mr.
Churchill, those events are clouded in controversy within the discipline of Native American studies.
"What they've done," Mr. Cheyfitz said of the committee, "is turn an academic debate into an indictment of one
side of that debate."
Mr. Cheyfitz also said that the investigation "quibbled" over historical details, proffered "frivolous" charges of
plagiarism, and focused on just a few pages in Mr. Churchill's large body of work.
Mr. Brown, the university president, called those arguments "laughable." He said that, of the more than 20
professors who were involved in the various committees investigating Mr. Churchill's work, none of them
disagreed that he had engaged in scholarly misconduct.
"In this process," said Mr. Brown, "Churchill's had a large number of opportunities to submit information, submit
facts, call witnesses, and testify. None of that was convincing to any of the faculty members or any of the
administrators. All of this has been heard and listened to and reviewed."
Unlikely Symbol
A large (6'5"), brash, and iconoclastic figure, Mr. Churchill is not a natural poster child. Yet he has come to
symbolize a bizarre array of modern causes, vices, and perils. He has been called a poster boy for "lefty nihilism,"
for "extremists in academe," for "academic malfeasance," and for academic freedom, to name just a few.
For many conservatives, Mr. Churchill has become a symbol of the political biases they think are rife in higher
education. His views, however unpalatable to the mainstream, have been described as dangerously typical of the
professoriate. "How Many Ward Churchills?," a study published by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni,
purported to show that "Ward Churchill is everywhere" in academe.
Meanwhile, Mr. Churchill's supporters see him as representative of a different phenomenon. Margaret LeCompte,
president of Mr. Churchill's local chapter of the American Association of University Professors, has called the
scrutiny of Mr. Churchill "a test case by the U.S. right wing to emasculate faculty rights in U.S. universities," an
effort, she said, that has been spearheaded by ACTA.
Anne D. Neal, president of ACTA and author of the "How Many Ward Churchills?" study, said that free speech
and even political bias were irrelevant to the board's decision. "It's not about politics," she said. "It's not about First
Amendment rights. This is about scholarly standards and the need for the public trust to be maintained."
66
The decision, she said, "sends a very positive message that higher education is cleaning up its own."
Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that Mr. Churchill's legal case
against the university may hold water, if only because of timing.
"Given that this investigation was initially launched because of his public opinions, he's going to have an
argument that this was all pretextual," said Mr. Lukianoff.
Mr. Lukianoff added that the university had placed itself in an awkward position "by launching the investigation
initially because people were angry about what he had said, not because of these pre-existing claims of academic
misconduct."
Mr. Churchill and his lawyer, Mr. Lane, said they were not surprised by the regents' vote. They said they had
already written out their lawsuit against the university by the night before the vote, in preparation for it to be filed
afterward.
A WARD CHURCHILL TIMELINE
September 2001
Ward Churchill writes an essay titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" in which he
calls those who died in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns," comparing those
workers in corporate America to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi official in charge of sending millions of Jews to
concentration camps.
December 2004
The Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society, and Culture at Hamilton College, in Clinton, N.Y., includes
a talk by Mr. Churchill in its list of spring events. A political-science professor reads Mr. Churchill's work and tells
Hamilton officials the event should be canceled.
January 2005
Hamilton's campus paper publishes an article that mentions Mr. Churchill's "little Eichmanns" remark. The story is
picked up by numerous conservative blogs and publications and by Bill O'Reilly, who calls Mr. Churchill "insane"
during a segment on his Fox News show. Mr. Churchill resigns as chairman of the University of Colorado at
Boulder's ethnic-studies department.
February 2005
Hamilton cancels the scheduled speech, citing threats of violence. The Colorado Board of Regents holds a
meeting to discuss Mr. Churchill, and the interim chancellor, Philip P. DiStefano, announces that he and two
deans will review the professor's work.
March 2005
67
Administrators at Boulder find that the First Amendment protects the statements Mr. Churchill made, but also
uncover allegations of research misconduct that they say should be investigated by a faculty committee.
May 2006
A faculty panel, led by Mimi Wesson, finds that Mr. Churchill plagiarized, falsified, and fabricated material in his
own research. Meanwhile, the university reviews its tenure process after documents revealed that Mr. Churchill
did not receive tenure in the traditional way.
June 2006
After reviewing the panel's findings, the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at Boulder issues a full
report that agrees with the panel. Members cannot, however, agree on an appropriate punishment. Later in the
month, Mr. DiStefano announces that he has given Mr. Churchill notice of intent to dismiss him. Mr. Churchill says
he will appeal the decision.
May 2007
Hank Brown, president of the University of Colorado system, recommends that the Board of Regents fire Mr.
Churchill.
July 2007
The Board of Regents votes to fire Mr. Churchill, who vows to challenge his dismissal in court.
==
paywall, alludes to cam[us newspaper at hamilton college ny
The Chronicle of Higher Education August 3, 2007 Friday Colo. Regents Vote to Fire Ward Churchill BYLINE: JOHN GRAVOIS SECTION: THE FACULTY; Pg. 1 Vol. 53 No. 48 Nearly six years after Ward Churchill compared some American victims of terrorism to Nazi bureaucrats, the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado has voted to fire him. But the controversial ethnic-studies professor says he is "ready to roll" in the next arena of his struggle with the university: a court of law. According to university administrators, it was findings that Mr. Churchill had committed research misconduct -- and not the notoriety of his opinions -- that fueled the decision last week. In a news release that appeared on the university's Web site just moments after the regents' 8-to-1 vote, the officials said that Mr. Churchill's record "shows a pattern of serious, repeated, and deliberate research misconduct that fell below the minimum stand [sic] of professional integrity, involving fabrication, falsification, improper citation, and plagiarism." "The university's review of Professor Churchill focused on his professional activities, not his statements about victims of September 11, 2001," the statement said. "This was someone who created fraudulent research and was caught," said Hank Brown, president of the University of Colorado system, in an interview. "The university's efforts were focused solely around that." However, some of Mr. Churchill's supporters -- which include the American Civil Liberties Union and the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors -- say the "poisoned atmosphere" surrounding the professor in Colorado made it impossible for him to receive a fair hearing. Other supporters, along with Churchill himself, say that the university's findings of academic misconduct were just a pretext for retaliating against him for his views. "Once you take away this carefully manufactured illusion of due process," said Mr. Churchill in an interview last week, "there's nothing left but the political speech." Mr. Churchill and his lawyer, David Lane, filed a lawsuit against the university the day after the decision, asking for damages and reinstatement. From Comment to Conduct For the Board of Regents, the vote to dismiss the hugely controversial professor was the culmination of a day of deliberations. Their closed discussion went on an hour and a half longer than expected, adding a last flutter of suspense before yielding an outcome that many saw as inevitable. 64 For the university, the vote represented the end of a two-and-a-half-year series of investigations into Mr. Churchill's speech, scholarship, and conduct. Those investigations started because of a public-relations crisis. Mr. Churchill was propelled into the national spotlight in early 2005, when the campus newspaper at Hamilton College, in New York State, where he was scheduled to give a speech, reported that he had once referred to the office workers killed in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, as "little Eichmanns." That incendiary remark, which instantly became Mr. Churchill's calling card in the press, traveled like wildfire through the conservative blogosphere and traditional news media. Before long, Mr. Churchill had become nightly fodder for Bill O'Reilly's Fox News talk show. After threats of violence began pouring in to Hamilton College, Mr. Churchill's speech there was canceled. And when politicians in Mr. Churchill's home state of Colorado began calling for his ouster, the interim chancellor of the University of Colorado at Boulder, where Mr. Churchill was on the faculty, announced that there would be an investigation into the professor's work to see whether he "may have overstepped his bounds." That first investigation -- carried out by the interim chancellor and two deans -- found that Mr. Churchill's speech was protected by the First Amendment. However, it also turned up pre-existing allegations of research misconduct, which set in motion another, more substantial review of the professor's work. In May 2006 a special investigative committee composed of three professors from Boulder and two outside professors released a 124-page report that found instances of fabricated evidence, improper citation, and plagiarism in Mr. Churchill's scholarship. That report, which was followed by several other steps (see timeline), paved the way for Mr. Brown to recommend to the Board of Regents in July that Mr. Churchill be fired. In its May 2006 report, the committee said that it was uneasy about the timing of the special attention given to Mr. Churchill's scholarship, which had been prompted by his sudden public infamy. But the committee reasoned through its uneasiness with a law-enforcement metaphor. "To use an analogy," the committee wrote, "a motorist who is stopped and ticketed for speeding because the police officer was offended by the contents of her bumper sticker, and who otherwise would have been sent away with a warning, is still guilty of speeding, even if the officer's motive for punishing the speeder was the offense taken to the speeder's exercise of her right to free speech. "No court would consider the improper motive of the police officer to constitute a defense to speeding, however protected by legal free-speech guarantees the contents of the bumper sticker might be." Grading the Investigators In the weeks and months leading up to the Board of Regents' vote, several supporters of Mr. Churchill turned their own scrutiny on the investigative committee's report. 65 Eric Cheyfitz, a professor of American studies at Cornell University, was among a handful of professors supporting Mr. Churchill who drafted a response to the report, accusing the committee itself of research misconduct. The group criticized the committee for not including experts in Mr. Churchill's field. Mr. Cheyfitz said that the committee relied too much, in its assessments of Mr. Churchill's research, on the work of scholars who have had longstanding feuds with Mr. Churchill. The report focuses on Mr. Churchill's accounts of several events in the history of U.S. relations with Native Americans. According to Mr. Cheyfitz, who testified before one of the university committees investigating Mr. Churchill, those events are clouded in controversy within the discipline of Native American studies. "What they've done," Mr. Cheyfitz said of the committee, "is turn an academic debate into an indictment of one side of that debate." Mr. Cheyfitz also said that the investigation "quibbled" over historical details, proffered "frivolous" charges of plagiarism, and focused on just a few pages in Mr. Churchill's large body of work. Mr. Brown, the university president, called those arguments "laughable." He said that, of the more than 20 professors who were involved in the various committees investigating Mr. Churchill's work, none of them disagreed that he had engaged in scholarly misconduct. "In this process," said Mr. Brown, "Churchill's had a large number of opportunities to submit information, submit facts, call witnesses, and testify. None of that was convincing to any of the faculty members or any of the administrators. All of this has been heard and listened to and reviewed." Unlikely Symbol A large (6'5"), brash, and iconoclastic figure, Mr. Churchill is not a natural poster child. Yet he has come to symbolize a bizarre array of modern causes, vices, and perils. He has been called a poster boy for "lefty nihilism," for "extremists in academe," for "academic malfeasance," and for academic freedom, to name just a few. For many conservatives, Mr. Churchill has become a symbol of the political biases they think are rife in higher education. His views, however unpalatable to the mainstream, have been described as dangerously typical of the professoriate. "How Many Ward Churchills?," a study published by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, purported to show that "Ward Churchill is everywhere" in academe. Meanwhile, Mr. Churchill's supporters see him as representative of a different phenomenon. Margaret LeCompte, president of Mr. Churchill's local chapter of the American Association of University Professors, has called the scrutiny of Mr. Churchill "a test case by the U.S. right wing to emasculate faculty rights in U.S. universities," an effort, she said, that has been spearheaded by ACTA. Anne D. Neal, president of ACTA and author of the "How Many Ward Churchills?" study, said that free speech and even political bias were irrelevant to the board's decision. "It's not about politics," she said. "It's not about First Amendment rights. This is about scholarly standards and the need for the public trust to be maintained." 66 The decision, she said, "sends a very positive message that higher education is cleaning up its own." Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that Mr. Churchill's legal case against the university may hold water, if only because of timing. "Given that this investigation was initially launched because of his public opinions, he's going to have an argument that this was all pretextual," said Mr. Lukianoff. Mr. Lukianoff added that the university had placed itself in an awkward position "by launching the investigation initially because people were angry about what he had said, not because of these pre-existing claims of academic misconduct." Mr. Churchill and his lawyer, Mr. Lane, said they were not surprised by the regents' vote. They said they had already written out their lawsuit against the university by the night before the vote, in preparation for it to be filed afterward. A WARD CHURCHILL TIMELINE September 2001 Ward Churchill writes an essay titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens" in which he calls those who died in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns," comparing those workers in corporate America to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi official in charge of sending millions of Jews to concentration camps. December 2004 The Kirkland Project for the Study of Gender, Society, and Culture at Hamilton College, in Clinton, N.Y., includes a talk by Mr. Churchill in its list of spring events. A political-science professor reads Mr. Churchill's work and tells Hamilton officials the event should be canceled. January 2005 Hamilton's campus paper publishes an article that mentions Mr. Churchill's "little Eichmanns" remark. The story is picked up by numerous conservative blogs and publications and by Bill O'Reilly, who calls Mr. Churchill "insane" during a segment on his Fox News show. Mr. Churchill resigns as chairman of the University of Colorado at Boulder's ethnic-studies department. February 2005 Hamilton cancels the scheduled speech, citing threats of violence. The Colorado Board of Regents holds a meeting to discuss Mr. Churchill, and the interim chancellor, Philip P. DiStefano, announces that he and two deans will review the professor's work. March 2005 67 Administrators at Boulder find that the First Amendment protects the statements Mr. Churchill made, but also uncover allegations of research misconduct that they say should be investigated by a faculty committee. May 2006 A faculty panel, led by Mimi Wesson, finds that Mr. Churchill plagiarized, falsified, and fabricated material in his own research. Meanwhile, the university reviews its tenure process after documents revealed that Mr. Churchill did not receive tenure in the traditional way. June 2006 After reviewing the panel's findings, the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at Boulder issues a full report that agrees with the panel. Members cannot, however, agree on an appropriate punishment. Later in the month, Mr. DiStefano announces that he has given Mr. Churchill notice of intent to dismiss him. Mr. Churchill says he will appeal the decision. May 2007 Hank Brown, president of the University of Colorado system, recommends that the Board of Regents fire Mr. Churchill. July 2007 The Board of Regents votes to fire Mr. Churchill, who vows to challenge his dismissal in court.
==
2006 conf 136 pp eron
https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ConferenceReport.pdf
Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill
-6-
Executive Summary
Ward Churchill was dismissed from the University of Colorado (CU) in 2007, having been convicted of plagiarism as well as fabrication and falsification of evidence for his claims that the United States government had been complicit in the genocide of Native Americans. It was Churchill’s essay of September 12, 2001, that drew attention to him— an essay that called victims of the attack on the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns.”
For four years the essay, titled “Some People Push Back,” went unnoticed, but in 2005 it caught the attention of faculty and administrators at Hamilton College in New York, and from there it went viral, becoming the topic of nonstop media commentary that lasted for months. Beginning in February 2005, a firestorm of public opinion raged. Politicians, media commentators, and citizens clamored for Churchill’s dismissal from the University, threatening to withhold both state funds and private donations. Realizing that Churchill’s right to express an opinion was protected by the First Amendment and that therefore they could not dismiss him for publishing what they felt to be a vile remark about innocent Americans, the University sought other reasons to dismiss Churchill. During his employment at CU, Churchill had published more and won more recognition for his scholarship, teaching, and service than, perhaps, any other member of the faculty.
He had also become a controversial figure in the field of American Indian Studies— incurring both the admiration and the wrath of other Indian activists and scholars. One antagonist—John LaVelle—had complained to CU officials about some of Churchill’s scholarly claims several years earlier, but his concerns had been dismissed as not worth pursuing. But now that the University needed to find a means to fire Churchill, it sought LaVelle’s help in constructing a case against him for research misconduct. Several charges were lodged against Churchill for falsification and fabrication of evidence as well as plagiarism. It is obvious that the University would never have begun its investigation of Ward Churchill were it not for his “little Eichmanns” comment, which he made as a citizen, not as a scholar or as a representative of the University. It is also obvious that dismissing Churchill from his position as a professor at the University violated his First Amendment rights.
Most U.S. citizens will agree that what keeps America vital are the freedoms enjoyed by its citizens, foremost of which is speech. Without free speech, the U.S. is just another totalitarian state. This is why citizens must jealously guard the rights of their fellow citizens to express opinions, even opinions with which they disagree or that anger them. If Churchill is not allowed to speak freely, none of us are. In its prosecution of Churchill, the University violated many of its own rules as well as the most basic principles of academic freedom it purports to uphold.
The following is from the University of Colorado’s own highest laws: Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill -7-
Faculty members can meet their responsibilities only when they have confidence that their work will be judged on its merits alone. For this reason the appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure of faculty members should be based primarily on the individual's ability in teaching, research/creative work, and service and should not be influenced by such extrinsic considerations as political, social, or religious views, or views concerning departmental or university operation or administration. A disciplinary action against a faculty member, including dismissal for cause of faculty, should not be influenced by such extrinsic consideration. (Laws of the Regents V.D.2.b.)
There is no doubt that Churchill’s dismissal was influenced by an extrinsic consideration—his political views. Following are other violations of CU’s own rules for guaranteeing Churchill a right to a fair hearing:
• The University convened an Investigative Committee (IC) that contained no experts in the field of American Indian Studies. This became a crucial obstacle to justice, since several of the allegations against Churchill involved matters of historical interpretation that the members of the IC were unqualified to judge.
• The University declined to appoint to the IC any member of the faculty who had expressed support for Churchill’s right to academic freedom, while appointing a faculty member who had expressed a strong personal bias against him to chair the committee.
• The number and timing of the allegations made it difficult for Churchill to defend himself. The IC refused to extend its 120-day time frame explicitly because doing so might work in his favor.
• Since “established standards” of research conduct vary, and since the field of American Indian Studies is cross-disciplinary, it was incumbent on the IC to set out the standards they would apply. Yet the IC was obstinately vague about which standards it would apply. Where no standards existed that would fault Churchill, the IC created its own.
• The IC proceedings were supposed to be “nonadversarial,” yet they were expressly conducted as a prosecution with Churchill as the defendant.
• In its final report, the IC suppressed and misrepresented evidence that worked in Churchill’s favor, and it contrived evidence against him. • The University repeatedly violated the rules of confidentiality by conducting press conferences, releasing statements to the press, and posting statements and documents on its website during the investigation. Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill -8-
• The University swept people who might have impeded progress toward Churchill’s termination out of the way—CU President Elizabeth Hoffman and Indian scholar Michael Yellow Bird, as examples—and brought in people who would ensure Churchill’s termination—former U.S. Senator Hank Brown, for example, a member of the neoconservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), which was overtly committed to the destruction of Churchill’s career and reputation because he was an outspoken critic of American foreign and domestic policy.
• Hoffman’s successor as President of CU, Hank Brown, disregarded the fact that the Committee for Privilege and Tenure (P&T) had dismissed several of the charges. Brown unilaterally reinstated them with his recommendation to the Board of Regents that Churchill be terminated.
As this report will demonstrate, the allegations against Churchill for fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are almost entirely false or misleading; the slivers that remain standing are trivial in the extreme, given the volume of Churchill’s work and the high regard in which it is held by other experts in the field. Few scholars’ work would survive under the microscope held to Churchill’s work. In our opinion, the members of the IC would be condemned as academic frauds if their report were subjected to the scrutiny that they applied to Churchill’s work—and if they had said “little Eichmanns.”
According to experts in the field of American Indian Studies, the IC report, upon which disciplinary recommendations against Churchill were based, is an extended series of falsifications and fabrications offered in the name of correcting the scholarly record. The seven allegations against Churchill can be broken into three parts: matters of historical interpretation, plagiarism, and use of sources.
Matters of Historical Interpretation
• The allegations that Churchill misrepresented the General Allotment Act of 1887 and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act disappear when one understands that Churchill was interpreting the Acts’ meaning by taking into account their implementation and effects, a normative approach to historical interpretation practiced by numerous scholars.
• Churchill’s accounts of the smallpox epidemics of 1616 and 1837 are defensible, based on the evidence he presents, according to experts in Churchill’s field.
• The strength of the circumstantial evidence regarding Captain John Smith’s complicity in the spread of smallpox is debatable, and it should be debated— among historians, not in disciplinary hearings. Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill -9-
• All of the allegations regarding matters of historical interpretation focus on minor details offered in support of Churchill’s much broader themes; these details are supported by reputable sources that the IC either disregarded or rejected. None of the allegations tarnish Churchill’s broader themes, all of which are supported by thousands more details and examples with which the University found no fault.
Plagiarism
• None of the authors whom Churchill is accused of plagiarizing have ever accused him publicly.
• The Dam the Dams group asked Churchill to publicize their issue, and Churchill cited the group as his source numerous times. There was clearly no attempt on Churchill’s part to steal their work.
• The IC was unable to prove that it was Churchill who plagiarized Fay Cohen. Indeed, the preponderance of evidence points elsewhere.
Use of Sources
• Where the IC cannot substantiate its allegations of plagiarism, it substitutes them with other allegations, primarily a failure “to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.” The failures in this regard are not Churchill’s, but the authors who neglected to credit him as co-author.
• The University’s charge that Churchill had plagiarized the Robbins essay, which was easily disproven, morphed into a complaint that he had committed an act of academic dishonesty by citing a source that he himself had written in order to support his claims that were otherwise unsupportable. However, many sources besides Robbins corroborate Churchill’s claims. The choice to cite one essay over another was not made to deceive the reader.
• The IC claims to respect Indian oral traditions and that Churchill disrespects them. In fact, the IC suppressed evidence that Churchill had fairly and accurately represented oral traditions in his publications. • Churchill is accused of misrepresenting the contents of works by Russell Thornton, Patricia Limerick, and Neal Salisbury. According to experts in the field, such an accusation amounts to falsification of evidence against Churchill.
• The IC faults Churchill for citing books without including page numbers; they claim he does this in order to conceal the “fact” that the book does not support his claims. In Churchill’s case, the books he cites do support his claims. Furthermore, citing books without page numbers is accepted practice when one is referring to Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill -10- the book as a whole and not to any specific passage within the book. In fact, one of the members of the IC has employed this very practice on at least 92 occasions.
• Both the IC and P&T have claimed that the practice of ghostwriting violates accepted academic practice. Both committees disregarded evidence that it is widely accepted practice in certain fields. Besides contriving their evidence against Churchill, the IC also takes him task for refusing to defer to their findings. Finally, the Colorado Conference of the AAUP recommends that faculty in search of employment consider a position at the University of Colorado only as a last resort because of the University of Colorado’s indifference to the ideals of academic freedom.
==
https://aaup.org.uiowa.edu/ward-churchill-controversy
A firestorm of protests erupted over the public remarks of Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado at Boulder. Churchill used the term "little Eichmanns" to characterize some of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. In his defense Churchill wrote, "I am not a 'defender' of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned." And also, "I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as 'Nazis.' What I said was that the 'technocrats of empire' working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of 'little Eichmanns.'" Not surprisingly, many Americans were deeply offended by Churchill's remarks and called for him to be fired.
However, never is the importance of academic freedom of greater consequence than when defending the most unpopular views. The national AAUP issued a statement that concluded by saying, "The critical test of academic freedom is its capacity to meet even the most painful and offending statements. A college or university campus is, of all places in our society, the most appropriate forum for the widest range of viewpoints."
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005, the Executive Committee of the UI Chapter of AAUP adopted the following resolution and forwarded it to the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado:
"It is hereby RESOLVED, that academic freedom being a core value of higher education, particularly public higher education, that freedom of inquiry and open debate are central to academic freedom, that Prof. Ward Churchill's radical critique of the events of September 11, 2001 falls within the scope of academic freedom, and that the ongoing investigation into Prof. Churchill's scholarship and credentials, as well as the personal vilification of him and death threats made against him, were prompted by his voicing that radical critique, the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS urges the University of Colorado to desist from any actions that may adversely affect Prof. Churchill's tenured status on the basis of his critique, to refrain from scrutinizing his employment in any way different from those applied to other tenured faculty members, and to re-affirm its commitment to academic freedom, tenure, shared governance, and due process."
On Wednesday, March 9, 2005, a virtually identical resolution was adopted by the UI Faculty Senate and forwarded to the University of Colorado Board of Regents.
==
fac comm rec'd one year suspension, Brown fired;
==
Ellen Schrecker argues //McCarthy political motive (Ethnic Studies) ACTA basically looking for liberal profs to go after; trappings of academic process; Brown added charges that had been tossed; committees split at each stage (except regents, 8:1. U Chic 1991 no penalty? 5 years lower div.
==
FIRE claimed somewhere to have defended ward C?
on wiki:
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Victory for Animals and Free Speech!". Archived from the original on September 28, 2011. Retrieved 2008-03-25.
- :{Jump up:(style="background-color:initial;user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}::{^:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: Lukianoff, Greg (2005-02-09). "FIRE Letter to University of Colorado at Boulder Interim Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano, February 9, 2005". Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Retrieved 2008-03-25.
greg ltr:
FIRE Letter to University of Colorado at Boulder Interim Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano, February 9, 2005
By admin February 9, 2005
February 9, 2005
Interim Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano
University of Colorado at Boulder
17 UCB
Regent 301
Boulder, Colorado 80309
Sent by U.S. Mail and Facsimile (303-492-8866)
Dear Chancellor DiStefano,
Before discussing the position of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) on the recent controversy involving University of Colorado at Boulder Professor Ward Churchill, I would like to say that FIRE is fully aware of the difficulties you face. FIRE has not seen a controversy involving political speech on campus provoke such passionate and often angry public response since the controversies that arose directly in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.
In the aftermath of that horrible day, FIRE was stalwart in its defense of professors and students from across the political spectrum, regardless of their opinions. We did not do this because we agreed with the opinions that were expressed; indeed, the individuals who make up FIRE’s politically diverse staffand leadership take for granted that each one of us must often defend speech with which we personally and passionately disagree. Yet FIRE defends free speech for allstudents and faculty members because we understand that the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech is more than simply a legal doctrine, it represents the belief that open discourse is critical to democratic society and that the merits of ideas are best decided in a free marketplace of expression rather than by government officials. History has decisively and repeatedly demonstrated that attempts by public officials to regulate or punish opinions are fraught with far greater peril than even the most offensive words.
FIRE is a non-profit civil liberties organization dedicated to the promotion of academic freedom, free speech, and fair procedures in American higher education. As you can see from our Board of Advisors, FIRE is non-partisan and enjoys the advice, support, and respect of public intellectuals, academics, journalists, and others who have a common concern for these vital areas of American public life. Please see our website, :{www.thefire.org:(style="-webkit-font-smoothing:antialiased;margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;vertical-align:baseline;background:transparent;text-decoration-line:none"):}:, to gain a further sense of our identity, activities, and resonance.
By now, many are aware of the statements that ignited this controversy. Professor Ward Churchill is the author of an article called “‘Some People Push Back’: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” The article compares the civilians who died in the World Trade Center attacks to an infamous Nazi bureaucrat, Adolf Eichmann, one of the primary architects of the Holocaust. The article also commends the “gallant sacrifices” of the September 11 hijackers. In recent days, Churchill has followed up these statements by declaring that America “needs” more attacks like September 11. Unsurprisingly, these statements have caused a strong reaction. In response to the controversy, Churchill stepped down from his position as chair of CU-Boulder’s ethnic studies department. And on February 3, you issued a statement on behalf of the CU Board of Regents that stated: “Within the next 30 days, the Office of the Chancellor will launch and oversee a thorough examination of Professor Churchill’s writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works.”
In that statement, you wrote that CU will be asking two questions during this evaluation: “(1) Does Professor Churchill’s conduct, including his speech, provide any grounds for dismissal for cause, as described in the Regents’ Laws? And (2) if so, is this conduct or speech protected by the First Amendment against University action?”
While FIRE recognizes that there are allegations that Churchill has committed acts of academic fraud, we will deal primarily with the controversial political expression that has been at the center of this controversy. With regard to the accusations of wrongdoing unrelated to Churchill’s political expression, we wish only to note that Professor Churchill is entitled to due process and should be given sufficient notice and an opportunity to defend himself from these charges. We would further like to emphasize that accusations of unrelated wrongdoing [plag?] should not be used as excuses to justify punishment of the professor for his political expression.
From a legal standpoint, there can be little doubt that even Churchill’s most controversial political statements are protected by the First Amendment. Supreme Court case law makes it quite clear that “[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texasv. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court has been unwavering in this stance and has protected many highly offensive forms of expression. In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court reversed a disturbing-the-peace conviction of a notorious racist and anti-Semite. Justice Douglas wrote in that case that speech is protected even when its purpose is to “induce a condition of unrest, create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stir people to anger.”
:{
}:
In another important civil rights case, Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972), the Court reversed the conviction of a citizen who called a police officer a “white son of a bitch” and added, “I’ll kill you.” In Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), the Court ordered the reinstatement of a journalism student who had distributed a cartoon depicting policemen raping the Statue of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice. The Court held that “conventions of decency” did not dictate what speech was protected on a public college campus.
Some commentators have argued that the Supreme Court decision in Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1993), gives the university the right to punish Churchill for the content of his expression. Waters is a case that limits the free speech rights of public employees when those employees are not addressing matters of “public concern.” Yet, as there are few issues of greater public concern than the September 11 attacks, the decision in Waters does not apply in this case and cannot be interpreted to allow a public university to punish the expression of viewpoints on matters of public concern by its professors. Professor Churchill’s speech is therefore protected. See also Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
:{:{
}:}:
Furthermore, since he spoke as a university professor offering his academic perspective to the national debate, Professor Churchill’s speech is fully protected by every traditional understanding of academic freedom. The Supreme Court has long understood the importance of academic freedom to our democratic society. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957), the Court stated:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made…. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. [Emphasis added.]
This case presents CU with an important opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the First Amendment, as CU has a record of favoring censorship over the U.S. Constitution. One year ago, the university tried to prevent the College Republicans from holding an “affirmative action bake sale” on campus to protest racial preferences in admissions and hiring. Affirmative action bake sales are a fully constitutionally protected form of political parodydirected against affirmative action and were held at colleges across the country in 2003 and 2004. Facing public pressure from FIRE and the threat of a legal challenge, CU permitted a watered-down version of the protest to go forward, but it also allowed anangry mob of students to physically assault [really?] the Republican protestors and destroy their literature. This previous demonstration of CU’s lack of respect for free speech must not be repeated.
FIRE requests that CU immediately and publicly declare that the university will fully and consistently protect the free speech rights of all students and professors. FIRE also requests that if the university initiates academic fraud investigations against Professor Churchill, those proceedings be conducted in accordance with longstanding university policy, providing Churchill with the same level of protection afforded to professors who are not as controversial or reviled. In other words, all students and professors at CU, including Professor Churchill, are entitled to and must be granted the full range of constitutional protections.
On a personal note, I would like to mention that I am a New Yorker. My parents made New York their home when they first came to this country. I was born in New York, and I live here today. My sister, in fact, worked in the World Trade Center up until a few months before the attacks. When I watched the first tower collapse, I was unsure if she had indeed changed jobs, and I believed I might have just witnessed her death. Fortunately, she was not in the building at the time, but the horror that I felt in the aftermath of the attacks will never leave me. You can imagine how I might feel about reading an essay comparing my family and my fellow New Yorkers to Nazis, particularly since my father grew up in Nazi-occupied Yugoslavia and experienced the horrors of Nazism firsthand. But whatever contempt I may have for Professor Churchill’s opinions, I believe it would be tragic if this incident were allowed to erode one of the most beautiful and fundamental principles of American society: free speech.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Professor Churchill’s opinions regarding September 11 have been utterly rejected by the public at large, have caused public figures from across the political spectrum to unite in their outrage against him, and have led many of his own colleagues to condemn his statements. If he intended to generate sympathy for terrorists, the effect has been the opposite. We need not fear his words, and we must not allow our anger to cause us to betray our deepest moral and legal principles. Indeed, it is most important that at times like these we defend our fundamental liberties. Liberty faces a far greater threat from a rejection of the First Amendment than it does from the opinions of Ward Churchill.
The University of Colorado must respect Professor Churchill’s constitutional rights—and the rights of all students and professors.
Sincerely,
Greg Lukianoff
Director of Legal and Public Advocacy
cc:
Todd Gleason, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder
Jerry G. Rutledge, Chair, University of ColoradoBoard of Regents
Gail Schwartz, Vice Chair, University of Colorado Board of Regents
Thomas J. Lucero, Jr., University of Colorado Board of Regents
Michael Carrigan, University of Colorado Board of Regents
Bill Owens, Governor, State of Colorado
Ward Churchill, Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder
Schools: University of Colorado at BoulderCases: University of Colorado at Boulder: Investigation of Professor for Controversial Essay
but then:
University of Colorado at Boulder: Investigation of Professor for Controversial Essay
Category: Due Process, Free Speech
Schools: University of Colorado at Boulder
Entrenched in vast controversy for referring to the civilians who died in the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns,” University of Colorado at Boulder Professor Ward Churchill stepped down from his position as chair of CU-Boulder’s ethnic studies department. Problems arose, however, when the CU Board of Regents declared they were going to launch an investigation into Churchill’s “writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works.”
FIRE wrote to CU noting that Churchill is entitled to due process and should be given the chance to defend himself, and assuring the university that Churchill’s speech, no matter how controversial or offensive, is protected by the First Amendment. Ultimately, the Board of Regents fired Churchill for “serious, repeated, and deliberate research misconduct” after finding that he had committed academic fraud. Churchill sued, on the basis that the investigation had been launched as a result of his controversial statements. FIRE took the position that while the initial investigation of Churchill’s speech was unconstitutional, as he was protected under the First Amendment, Churchill had put himself in the spotlight through his controversial statements,and was therefore susceptible to any further inquiry into his other works. In FIRE’s view, the termination for academic fraud was constitutional.
:{
}:
logic?
==
2017 CU mtg, bonilla:
https://academeblog.org/2017/08/14/video-aaup-colorado-academic-freedom-symposium/
https://www.thefire.org/cases/depaul-university-censorship-of-student-group-protesting-ward-churchill/
DePaul University: Censorship of Student Group Protesting Ward Churchill
Category: Free Speech
Schools: DePaul University
A student group that protested a campus appearance by University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill has become DePaul University’s latest victim of censorship. FIRE denounced DePaul’s Orwellian actions after the university banned its College Republicans from posting flyers protesting Churchill’s visitand actually changed its own rules to prevent the organization from attending a workshop that he would be leading. The school issued a formal warning condemning the student group.
Case Materials
Media Coverage
Commentary
DePaul University Revokes Vague Ban on ‘Propaganda’
January 06, 2006 | » Read More
E-Mail from DePaul President Dennis Holtschneider to FIRE, December 21, 2005
December 21, 2005 | » Read More
DePaul Forbids Student Group to Protest Ward Churchill
December 21, 2005 | » Read More
DePaul College Republicans’ Flyers Protesting Ward Churchill Appearance
December 20, 2005 | » Read More
DePaul University Policy Banning ‘Propaganda’
December 20, 2005 | » Read More
FIRE’s Research on DePaul University’s Shifting Flyer Posting Policy
December 20, 2005 | » Read More
Letter from DePaul University President Dennis Holtschneider to FIRE, December 12, 2005
December 12, 2005 | » Read More
FIRE Letter to DePaul University President Dennis Holtschneider, November 23, 2005
November 23, 2005 | » Read More
Events Page and E-Mail Closing Churchill-led Workshop to DePaul College Republicans
October 28, 2005 | » Read More
Formal Warning to DePaul College Republicans for Posting Flyers
October 26, 2005 | » Read More
Events Page Showing DePaul’s Churchill-led Workshop Open to All Student Organizations
October 15, 2005 | » Read More
E-Mail from DePaul University to DePaul College Republicans, September 28, 2005
September 28, 2005 | » Read More
AAUP
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/02/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-ward-churchill
==
mojo
==
“I Never Claimed I Was F***ing Sitting Bull”
Ward Churchill, fiery ex-professor and Native American rights activist, is ready for his comeback.
WES ENZINNA SEP. 5,20176:00 AM
One Saturday afternoon, Ward Churchill returned to the University of Colorado-Boulder, where 10 years earlier he’d been fired and stripped of tenure as chair of the college’s ethnic studies department. “I thought Bill O’Reilly would’ve stirred up a few protesters,” he said before taking the floor in a carpeted conference room half filled with about 50 professors, students, and activists.
The O’Reilly Factor aired 41 segments on Churchill. The Weekly Standard tagged him “the worst professor in America.”
Standing before the crowd, the 69-year-old Churchill cut the image of the bomb-throwing radical—“a traitor,” as O’Reilly put it—that he’d been cultivating his entire life: 6-foot-5 in cowboy boots, with a long gray-black ponytail cinched with a black band and his waist lassoed with a beaded belt. He grit his teeth while talking, like he was chewing tobacco, and spat out his words with disgust. “American jockstrap sniffers,” he called his critics, in particular the academics who’d picked apart his scholarship and helped get him fired. He compared them to SS officers, to apparatchiks helping the trains of a supposedly corrupt University of Colorado system run on time. “That’s what Eichmann did,” he said. The crowd gasped with delight.
Churchill’s penchant for this comparison, ad-Nazium, runs deep. Each of his 18 books is a brick in a monumental project dedicated to proving that Native Americans were subjected to a genocide comparable to the Holocaust. The day after September 11, he published an essay describing the stockbrokers and technocrats who died in the Twin Towers as “little Eichmanns.” Right-wing media was incensed: The O’Reilly Factor aired 41 segments on him. The Weekly Standard tagged him “the worst professor in America.”
His scholarly work was investigated by aUniversity of Colorado special committee—overseen by CU President Hank Brown, a former Republican senator who co-founded the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), a conservative campus watchdog, with Lynne Cheney in 1995. Churchill was accused of plagiarism and falsifying his research, and he was fired in July 2007.
Most of the claims leveled against Churchill were later deemed “almost entirely false or misleading.” But it was too late.
:{
}:
After reviewing 17,000 pages of evidence, the American Association of University Professors would later find most of the claims leveled against Churchill “almost entirely false or misleading.” When Churchill sued CU, a jury reached the same conclusion. But it was too late. Churchill’s career and reputation were eviscerated.
In the decade since Churchill’s dismissal, his case has not only become just one in a long line of right-wing attacks on academic freedom, it has also served as a precursor to today’s “free speech” battles. While ACTA once published a list of instructors opposed to President George W. Bush’s anti-terrorism policies, groups such as the Bradley Foundation and the Koch Foundation spend hundreds of thousands of dollars funding centers on college campuses dedicated to promoting so-called free-market ideas—a professor at a Koch-backed center once described the students as foot-soldiers—as well as backing groups that target “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” as antithetical to free expression.
Republican legislators, meanwhile, attempt to silence other types of speech on campus, such as when, in 2015, GOP lawmakers in North Carolina shut down the Center for Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the UNC-Chapel Hill’s law school for allegedly being too left-leaning. Or earlier this year, when Republican state legislators threatened to withhold funds from the University of Wisconsin-Madison until itagreed to fire the instructor of a course on “The Problems of Whiteness.”
Churchill’s firing, and ACTA and right-wing media’s cheering of it, belies, in some ways, campus conservatives’ concern for protecting academic freedom, and Churchill is a reminder that today’s right-wing-led free speech fights are mostly about politics and power, not the First Amendment.
“Academic freedom in America is dead,” Churchill told the crowd.
Now, in Boulder, he had returned to say I told you so. “Academic freedom in America is dead,” Churchill told the crowd. “I had my identity before I was a professor, I had it while I was a professor, and I have it now.”
After his decadelong absence from public life, he had just published a volume of his collected work, Wielding Words Like Weapons. There’s also a forthcoming volume and “a half-dozen books in varying states of completion.” His return was an attempt at a comeback, and a vindication. He’d been invited to give the keynote address at a conference organized by the lead author of the American Association of University Professors report that concluded that Churchill had been the victim of a politically motivated witch hunt that violated “the most basic principles of academic freedom.”
After his hourlong speech, Churchill shook hands and signed some books before walking to the parking lot carrying a check for his $550 speaking fee—before he was fired, he charged $5,000. He climbed into a red Dodge Durango, lit a filterless Pall Mall, and drove toward downtown Boulder, past the building where he got his start as a writer for Soldier of Fortune magazine, past the corner where he’d been arrested for protesting Columbus Day in 1991. A spring storm had painted the streets with a fresh coat of snow. “I don’t even recognize this fuckin’ place,” he said as he passed a new Barnes & Noble and condo towers. “It’d be nice to blow it up.”
The truck’s seatbelt warning dinged. Churchill “doesn’t do seatbelts.” He doesn’t do airplanes either. He’d driven from Atlanta, where he now lives—it took a whole week—just to get here. Driving, he said, clears his head.
When he arrived at a brown ranch house on Wicklow Street, he slowed to a crawl. He’d lived in the house for 30 years, until he sold it in 2012 after his appeal to be reinstated at CU-Boulder was rejected by the Colorado Supreme Court.He recalled shooting jackrabbits in the pasture across the street. It was now the yard of a McMansion. “That house would look really good,” Churchill said, “if it was on fire.”
On the night of May 31, 2000, Churchill’s 25-year-old wife, Leah Renae Kelly, died about a hundred yards from here. She and Churchill had been sitting on their porch when they got into an argument. Churchill went inside. When he returned, Kelly, who had been drinking heavily, was gone. Soon Churchill saw flashing blue lights down the road and went running toward them. He found Kelly splayed across the road’s center line. She’d been run over. Churchill picked up her body, like a “broken bird,” and she died soon afterward.
“Leah Renae Kelly was not simply an ‘inebriated pedestrian killed by [a] car,’ as the local newspaper so casually remarked on the date she died,” Churchill writes in his 2013 essay, “Kizhiibaabinesik,” collected in Wielding Words Like Weapons. (Kizhiibaabinesik means “great bird circling the earth” in Ojibwa.) “There were reasons why that young, beautiful, incredibly promising, and catastrophically drunk Ojibwe woman was running barefooted down the middle of the road that night.”
Those reasons, Churchill argues, are the same ones that have animated all his work. From his controversial cri de coeur against nonviolent protest, Pacifism as Pathology, to Fantasies of the Master Race, a book on representations of Natives in film and literature, he’s always examined how the violence of America’s past has disfigured the identity of modern Native Americans by prompting them to internalize narratives of inferiority and inculcated in them tremendous self-hatred.
He’s looked at how this has disfigured the white oppressors, in turn, by demanding self-denial of their crimes in order to maintain a positive self-identity, what Churchill calls the “Master narrative.” Kelly’s minor role in the Master narrative—years of self-abuse and neglect, the crushing poverty and despair of reservation life, and the alcoholism she relied on to salve those psychological wounds—was a personal tragedy, but the power of the essay is to also insist that it was a collective one. “Her life,” Churchill writes, “illustrate[s] and reveal[s] the grinding horror that destroyed her…Give the crime its name. Call it, as I have, colonialism.”
“Fucking white people,” Churchill muttered as the house on Wicklow Street faded in the rearview mirror and he headed toward the highway. “They’re the problem.”
Yet by Churchill’s own admission, he, too, is part of the problem. During the inquiry into his scholarship, numerous newspaper investigations concluded that he’s at most only a sliver Native American. A 2005 investigation for the Rocky Mountain News by an Irish American reporter, Kevin Flynn, “turned up no evidence of a single Indian ancestor” among 142 of Churchill’s ancestors. Two of his great-grandparents identified themselves as Native American on census records—a fact that seems to support his claim to be 1/16 Cherokee—and the genealogical records Flynn consulted list the race and ethnicity of Churchill’s family members as “unknown,” not Caucasian. But none of that satisfied the critics who derided Churchill as a “pretendian.” “His words got him in trouble,” author Sherman Alexie told Mother Jones in 2009, “but he had lost plenty of Indian credibility before he lost white people’s credibility.”
:{
}:
“Even if that fucking Irish reporter is 100 percent right,” Churchill said, “how is the exact measure of how Native I am relevant to me being railroaded and stripped of tenure? I never claimed I was fucking Sitting Bull.”
He described growing up in a working-class part of Evanston, Illinois, how he never knew his biological father, and how at the age of 10 his mother and grandmother told him he was the descendant of Cherokees (an account corroborated by Churchill’s brother). His maternal family had identified that way for years.In the 1890s, one ancestor argued before the Supreme Court that he was Native American and demanded to be given a land allotment by the federal government. He was denied.
“This is precisely how structural racism works,” Churchill said as he drove. “The state and its institutions exert their ability to define another’s identity at will and give or withdraw benefits and protections accordingly.” He refers to the “blood quantum”—the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ common requirement that tribe members demonstrate one-quarter native ancestry—as an “extension of the project of genocide.”
As more Natives intermarry with non-Natives, Churchill fears that eventually no one will satisfy the blood quantum. “Tribes are kicking fucking guys who look like Geronimo off the rolls because they can’t prove they are 25 percent Native,” he said. “Why the fuck does the federal government get to decide how much blood is required to make someone native? Follow this to its logical conclusion and soon there will be no ‘Natives’ left.”
When I asked him whether he’d ever write about his own ancestry and the controversy surrounding it, he bristled. “I don’t like being vulnerable,” he said. But what might Churchill write about his own life if he applied to it the same unsparing analysis that he applied to Leah Renae Kelly’s? What might he say about the lacunas and inconsistencies of his biography—his childhood, his Vietnam service, his years in the American Indian Movement, the formation of his consciousness as a self-identifying Native?
Answering these questions with his acid pen might illuminate how, perhaps, embodied in his own life story, in his own identity, is yet another version of the violent clash between colonizer and colonized.
Back on the highway, Churchill stomped on the pedal and gunned it to 80 mph. He lit his last Pall Mall. “I’m only human,” he said, as the city he no longer recognized gave way to farmland and snowy peaks. He went even faster—85, 90.
It was as though he were trying to outrun Boulder, but without a clear destination in mind. The seatbelt warning screamed. “It hurts,” he said. “I’ve been hurt. No one said the fucking process of decolonization was going to be painless.”
==
http://www.westword.com/news/ward-churchills-return-to-cu-boulder-9008153
The Return of Ward Churchill to CU Boulder
MICHAEL ROBERTS | APRIL 27, 2017 | 7:52AM
On Saturday, April 29, former professor Ward Churchill will return to the University of Colorado Boulder, the institution that fired him ten years ago in what the author of a report that blasted CU's actions calls "the most notorious academic freedom controversy in a generation."
Churchill is scheduled to speak at the Academic Freedom Symposium, an event sponsored by the American Association of University Professors' Colorado conference — the same organization that issued "Reports on the University of Colorado's Terminations of Phil Mitchell and Ward Churchill," which we previewed in November 2011. The document concludes that the dismissals of Churchill and Mitchell, a non-tenured history instructor who said he'd been targeted for his conservative views, were so egregious that profs looking for a job should consider one at CU Boulder only as a last resort.
RELATED STORIES
Ward Churchill wins...a dollar
CU's treatment of Ward Churchill, Phil Mitchell makes it questionable employer, report finds
Ward Churchill case: Did he really only want $1 in lawsuit against CU?
To recap the Churchill case: When a damning essay he wrote immediately after the 9/11 attacks came to light in January 2005, years after the fact, a storm of bad publicity followed, with Governor Bill Owens, assorted state legislators and relatives of 9/11 victims castigating him in chorus. The following March, CU Boulder launched an investigation into academic misconduct allegedly unrelated to the essay— and its findings were used to justify his firing by the university's board of regents circa July 2007.
In response, Churchill sued the university and won in 2009, although his cash award for damages totaled a single dollar. His subsequent, years-long efforts to be reinstated at the institution failed, despite the conclusions at the heart of the aforementioned report, penned by Don Eron, a CU writing instructor.
:{
}:
"We found that he did not commit academic misconduct," Eron told us in 2011, adding, "I wasn't surprised by finding that the university caved in under public pressure, because there was something phony about seeking alternative means for firing him. But I wasvery surprised by the report by the Standing Committee for Research Misconduct. Before the report came out, there was considerable faculty support for Churchill, but afterward, it was widely perceived that he was a fraud, even though our conclusion is that what they called academic misconduct was actually a normative practice used by numerous experts in the field — and even by some people on the committee itself."
Today, Eron, who's now retired from CU, says that Churchill"was censored by the administration, he was censored by the regents and he was censored by the state legislature, at least indirectly.And I think the faculty itself got into a situation where they were in over their heads. They were incompetent and arrogant, but I don't think they intended to censor him. It was the objective of the governor and the regents, but I don't think it was the objective of the faculty."
According to Eron, Churchill subsequently relocated to Atlanta "and he's basically retired from teaching. But he certainly hasn't retired as a scholar." Indeed, Churchill has written two just-published books. He's the sole author of Wielding Words like Weapons: Selected Essays in Indigenism, 1995–2005, which is being promoted via blurbs of praise from left-wing icons Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, and he's listed as co-writer (with Michael Ryan) of Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America, Third Edition, the latest version of a work whose roots stretch back to the mid-1980s. And a third book collecting Churchill essays from 2005 to 2015 is expected by year's end.
Eron says this last tome will include pieces that tackle Churchill's ouster from CU Boulder and the fight that followed — and he expects the subject will also be addressed at the symposium.
CU Boulder is the location of the event, Eron notes, but not the sponsor — and while the university's School of Education is officially playing that role, "I don't know that they necessarily want to be associated with Ward Churchill." Nonetheless, Eron doesn't expect CU Boulder representatives to kick up a fuss over Churchill returning to the campus, even if what he has to say about the university is condemnatory.
"He has a great interest in the historic suppression of speech for radicals," Eron points out. "And I think he very much sees himself on that continuum."
wiki
9/11 essay controversy
Churchill wrote an essay in September 2001 entitled On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. In it, he argued that the September 11 attacks were provoked by U.S. foreign policy. He compared the role of financial workers at the World Trade Center in "ongoing genocidal American imperialism" to the role played by Adolf Eichmann in organizing the Holocaust.
In 2005, this essay was widely publicized when Hamilton College invited Churchill to speak.[3] This led to both condemnations of Churchill and counter-accusations of McCarthyism by Churchill and supporters. Following the controversy, the University of Colorado interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano said, "While Professor Churchill has the constitutional right to express his political views, his essay on 9/11 has outraged and appalled us and the general public."[23]
A documentary called Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, broadcast on HBO, prominently features Churchill's case in addressing the issues of free speech and First Amendment rights.
Research misconduct investigation
Churchill testifying in the civil trial of *Ward Churchill v. University of Colorado.*
The controversy attracted increased academic attention to Churchill's research, which had already been criticized by the legal scholar John LaVelle and historian...Guenter Lewy.[45][57][58] Additional critics were the sociologist Thomas Brown,who had been preparing an article on Churchill's work, and the historians R.G. Robertson and Russell Thornton, who claimed that Churchill had misrepresented their work.[59][60]
In 2005, University of Colorado Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct,[37] including three allegations of plagiarism, and four allegations of fabrication or falsification regarding the history of the Dawes Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, and statements that smallpox was intentionally spread to Native Americans by John Smith in 1614 and by the United States Army at Fort Clark in 1837 (not to be confused with the well-documented use of smallpox-infected blankets at Fort Pitt in 1764).
On May 16, 2006 the University released their findings; the Investigative Committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct", including falsification, fabrication, and two of the three allegations of plagiarism.[4]
:{
}:
[1st comm?
"We found that he did not commit academic misconduct," Eron told us in 2011, ]
note 4: Wesson, Marianne; Clinton, Robert; Limón, José; McIntosh, Marjorie; Radelet, Michael (9 May 2006). Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill (PDF). University of Colorado Boulder. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 23, 2006.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060523111342/http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf
The committee was divided on the appropriate level of sanctions.[4] The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee but also disagreed on what sanctions should be imposed.[61] Churchill's appeal against his proposed dismissal was considered by a panel of the University's Privilege and Tenure Committee, which found that two of the seven findings of misconduct did not constitute dismissible offences. Three members recommended that the penalty should be demotion and one year's suspension without pay, while two favored dismissal.[5][62]
On July 24, 2007, the University regents voted seven to two to uphold all seven of the findings of research misconduct, overruling the recommendation of Privilege and Tenure panel that two be dismissed. By a vote of eight to one, the regents determined to fire Churchill.[5][62]
The next day, Churchill filed a lawsuit in state court claiming that the firing was retribution for his expressing politically unpopular views.[63] The jury in Churchill's suit for reinstatement weighed the university's claims of academic misconduct per jury instructions it received in the case. As **Stanley Fish** said, "It was the jury’s task to determine whether Churchill’s dismissal would have occurred independently of the adverse political response to his constitutionally protected statements."[64]
The jury found that the alleged misconduct would not have led to Churchill's firing and rejected the university's academic misconduct claim as the grounds for dismissal. On April 1, 2009, a Colorado jury found that Churchill had been wrongly fired, and awarded $1 in damages.[7] As one of the jurors said later in a press interview, "it wasn't a slap in his face or anything like that when we didn't give him any money. It's just that [Churchill's attorney] David Lane kept saying this wasn't about the money, and in the end, we took his word for that."[65] Churchill's counsel asked Chief Judge Larry J. Naves of the Denver District Court to order reinstatement in light of the verdict.
On July 7, 2009, Judge Naves found that the defendants (university) were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as a matter of law, vacated the jury verdict and determined that the University did not owe Churchill any financial compensation.[10][66] Naves denied Churchill's request for reinstatement at CU.
Churchill appealed both decisions. On November 24, 2010, a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.[67] In February 2011, Churchill filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Colorado Supreme Court.[68] In late May 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear his case.[69] Court records indicate that oral arguments began June 7, 2012.[70] On September 10, 2012, the court ruled that the University had "quasi-judicial immunity", upholding the trial court's ruling.[71] On April 1, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Churchill.[72]
Honors
- 1992, Alfred University awarded him an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters.[73]
Works
Books, as editor
- Marxism and Native Americans. Boulder CO: South End Press. 1984. ISBN 978-0-89608-178-9.
- Sharon Venne, ed. (1997). Islands in Captivity: The International Tribunal on the Rights of Indigenous Hawaiians. Boulder CO: South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-568-8. Re-released as Churchill, Ward (2005). Sharon Venne, ed. Islands in Captivity: The Record of the International Tribunal on the Rights of Indigenous Hawaiians. Boulder CO: South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-738-5.
- Natsu Saito, ed. (2006). Confronting The Crime Of Silence: Evidence Of U.S. War Crimes In Indochina. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-904859-21-5.
Books, as author and co-author:
- Culture versus Economism: Essays on Marxism in the Multicultural Arena. with Elisabeth Lloyd. Indigena Press. 1984.
- Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. with Jim Vander Wall. Boulder CO: South End Press. 1988. ISBN 978-0-89608-294-6.
- The **COINTELPRO** Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret War Against Domestic Dissent. with Jim Vander Wall. Boulder CO: South End Press. 1990. ISBN 978-0-89608-359-2.
- Fantasies of the Master Race: Literature, Cinema, and the Colonization of American Indians. Common Courage Press. 1992. ISBN 978-0-87286-348-4.
- Churchill, Ward (1992). Jennie and Jim Vander Wall, ed. Cages of Steel: The Politics of Imprisonment in America (Activism, Politics, Culture, Theory, Vol. 4 ed.). Maisonneuve Press. ISBN 978-0-944624-17-3. Re-released as Churchill, Ward (2004). Jim Vander Wall, ed. Politics of Imprisonment in the United States. AK Press. ISBN 978-1-904859-12-3.
- Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Expropriation in Contemporary North America. Common Courage Press. 1993. ISBN 978-1-56751-001-0. Revised and expanded edition: Struggle for the Land: Native North American Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Colonization. San Francisco CA: City Lights Books. 2002. ISBN 978-0-87286-415-3.
- Indians Are Us?: Culture and Genocide in Native North America. Common Courage Press. 1994. ISBN 978-1-56751-021-8.
- Since Predator Came: Notes from the Struggle for American Indian Liberation. Aigis Press. 1995. ISBN 978-1-883930-03-5.
- Churchill, Ward (1996). From a Native Son: Selected Essays on Indigenism 1985–1995. Boulder CO: South End Press. ISBN 978-0-89608-553-4.
- Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America. with Mike Ryan (introduction by Ed Mead). Arbeiter Ring. 1998. ISBN 978-1-894037-07-5.
- A Little Matter of Genocide. San Francisco CA: City Lights Books. 1998. ISBN 978-0-87286-343-9.
- Draconian Measures: The History of FBI Political Repression. Common Courage Press. 2000. ISBN 978-1-56751-059-1.
- Acts Of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader. Routledge. 2002. ISBN 978-0-415-93156-4.
- Perversions of Justice: Indigenous Peoples and Angloamerican Law. San Francisco CA: City Lights Books. 2002. ISBN 978-0-87286-416-0.
- On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality. AK Press. 2003. ISBN 978-1-902593-79-1.
- Kill the Indian, Save the Man: The Genocidal Impact of American Indian Residential Schools. San Francisco CA: City Lights Books. 2004. ISBN 978-0-87286-434-4.
- Speaking Truth in the Teeth of Power: Lectures on Globalization, Colonialism, and Native North America. AK Press. 2004. ISBN 978-1-904859-04-8.
- To Disrupt, Discredit And Destroy: The FBI's Secret War Against The Black Panther Party. Routledge. 2005. ISBN 978-0-415-92957-8.
Articles
==
wrote to Bari about Lord's avenger ltr?
FoxNews' neo-McCarthyism
The O'Reilly Factor program plays a fundamental ideological and propagandistic role. Its principal purpose is to uncritically propagate the position of the U.S. government or its right-wing ideologues, and to disparage critics of that policy/ideology. The latter involves character assassination, disparaging comments, and even calls for a person to be imprisoned, fired from their job, and for the "mob" to attack the person in question.
On February 2, 2005, O'Reilly persecuted Ward Churchill,an outspoken professor at the University of Colorado/Boulder and author of numerous books. Churchill wrote and suggested that 911 was a case of "chickens coming home to roost",and a direct consequence of US policy abroad. These comments (which were a year old), were recast as being anti-American, and this paragraph conveys the flavor of the rest of the program:
He wants us to empathize with Al Qaeda. Yet he has little empathy for his fellow countrymen who died on 9/11. He sees the USA as a racist country run by human rights violators. So, of course, any attack on America is justified in his mind. [5]
The result of this program was acoordinated campaign of intimidation against university where Ward Churchill teaches, death threats, and other vile reactions. This is what Ward Churchill had to say about this:
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life.What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.
— Ward Churchill, Churchill Replies, Z Net, February 2, 2005.
As the experience of several of the victims of O'Reilly's campaigns indicates, the character assassination in The O'Reilly Factor is the culmination of a campaign that includes the following:
Vilification in the right-wing press.
Concerted mail/email campaigns against the institution where the victims work. The fact that such email campaigns start before the airing of the program proves that this aspect of the campaign is coordinated.
Waves of spam and spoofed emails against the victims have been evident.
Violent threats have been made.
Daniel Pipes's Campus-Watchhas listed and posted "dossiers" on several of the victims that are eventually disparaged by O'Reilly.
[?]
Deciding fates: judge, jury and...
If the McCartyite campaign wasn't bad enough, on February 2, 2005, O'Reilly appeared together withDaniel Pipes in a program entitled: "Deciding Churchill's fate"! Exerpts:
"The Colorado Board of Regents will decide the fate of professor Ward Churchill, who compared Americans killed on 9/11 to Nazis. Apparently the man is getting threats, and a reporter from The New York Times called me to ask if I felt responsible. I won't be surprised if The Factor audience and I are blamed in some circles for the unfortunate plight of Ward Churchill. I don't revel in the destruction of any person, even one who has said the vile things Churchill has said. I even said the man shouldn't be fired from his job because America is strong enough to tolerate even him. But all that doesn't matter to the left wing media. This isn't about Churchill, this is about power--and many on the left hate the fact that Fox has it. What do Churchill and his sympathizers expect? We're in a war on terror and he supports the enemy. That being said, Churchill should not be harmed in any way--he should instead by [sic] shunned."
— O'Reilly, Deciding Churchill's fate, February 2, 2005.
The choice of Pipes for the program is curious. Here is someone who has been smearing and baiting university professors who have been critical of Israel, and he is asked to comment on the "fate" of someone he reviles!
Other victims of O'Reilly's smear program are:
Sami Al Arian – as a result of the program he lost his tenured position at his university and is currently in prison.
Shahid Alam – this program (February 3, 2005) follows a string of acts of intimidation and smears in Campus-Watch and related organizations. Alam's account of this can be found here: Shahid Alam, "O'Reilly's Fatwah on "Un-American" Professors: FoxNews Puts Me In Its Crosshairs", CounterPunch, February 2, 2005.
==
A new website is targeting pro-Palestinian college activists by seeking to deny them jobs after they graduate. Dubbed "Canary Mission," the site profiles dozens of students and graduates involved in the Palestinian cause, in the hopes employers won’t hire them. In a promotional video, a narrator asks for help in ensuring that "today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees."
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/6/1/headlines
Canary Mission ad: "These individuals are applying for jobs within your company. There is no record of their membership of radical organizations. No one remembers their yelling profanities on campus or attending Jew-hating conference and anti-American rallies. All evidence has been eradicated, and soon they will be part of your team. Canary Mission’s simple interface allows you to easily explore profiles of radical individuals and organizations. BDS News will keep you up-to-date with the latest developments. And follow our blog for an in-depth analysis of radical campus activity. Join us to combat this wave of hatred, protect freedom and make campus life safe for everyone. It is your duty to ensure that today’s radicals are not tomorrow’s employees."
The targeted students include members of Students for Justice in Palestine, which is active on campuses nationwide. Although the students’ names, photographs and biographical information are extensively shown, the Canary Mission keeps its own backers and staffers completely secret.
==
On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality is a 2003 book written by Ward Churchill and published by AK Press.[1]The "Roosting Chickens" of the title comes from a 1963 Malcolm Xspeech[2][3] about the John F. Kennedy assassination, which the rights activist called "merely a case of 'chickens coming home to roost.'"[4]
Churchill used the term "Roosting Chickens" in a short essay, "'Some People Push Back': On the Justice of Roosting Chickens", first published on September 12, 2001. In that article, Churchill claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States were "acts of war" by the "Islamic East" in defense against the "crusades" waged by the "Christian West" (e.g. Arab-Israeli conflict and The First Gulf War) throughout the late 20th century.[5]
Contents
[hide]
- :{1:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{The original essay:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{2:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{The book:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{3:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{Response:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{4:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{See also:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
- :{5:(style="display:table-cell;padding-left:0px;padding-right:0.5em"):}::{References:(style="display:table-cell"):}:
The original essay
The original Some People Push Back essay was written one day after September 11, 2001.
Topics
In Churchill's original Some People Push Back essay, he alleged that some practices of the U.S. armed forces violate widely accepted Principles of Warfare:
1991 US "surgical" bombing of [Iraq's ] water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.... this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior -- the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. ... In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.[5]
Conclusions
Since he claims that it was the U.S. who started violence in the first place, he argues that it is not unimaginable that "some people push back".
As a result of what he believes to be the nefarious effects of American foreign policy and global capitalism, Churchill argues that some of those targeted in the attack of the World Trade Center were not technically innocent civilians:
As for those in the World Trade Center... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. :{
To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see.}: More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.[5]
The book
The essay was followed by the book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens in 2003.
After a foreword by Chellis Glendinning, the book is divided into three parts:
- The Ghosts of 9-1-1, an expanded version of Some People Push Back.[6]
- That "Most Peace-Loving of Nations", a long and detailed list of military interventions and covert actions conducted by the US government.
- "A Government of Laws"?, an equally long list of instances where Churchill alleges that the US has contravened international law, particularly United Nations resolutions.
Response
Neither piece was widely publicized at the time, though the 2003 book does indicate that the Nazi references in the earlier essay were already controversial.[6] The Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights gave Churchill's volume an honorable mention in December 2004.[7]
Churchill's remarks about World Trade Center victims became the center of considerable attention and controversy in January 2005 when Hamilton College of Clinton, New York invited him to give a speech. As a result, the speech was cancelled, citing "credible threats of violence". Churchill's "little Eichmanns" drew ferverous condemnation from media pundits, who called for his resignation and deemed him unfit to teach. The University of Colorado Board of Regents publicly apologized for Churchill's writings about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Following this media controversy, Churchill was investigated for plagiarism, found to have committed academic misconduct, fired, and filed a lawsuit against CU. Churchill won $1 in a jury verdict that was vacated by the judge in the case.[8] Churchill's final appeal was denied on April 1, 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.[9]
See also
- Genocide
- Overseas expansion of the United States
- Inversion in postcolonial theory
- Blowback (intelligence)
- Jus ad bellum
- Laws of war
- New Imperialism
- Oil for Food program
- Popular opposition to war on Iraq
- Post–September 11 anti-war movement
- Reprisal
- Strategic bombing
- Victor's justice
- War crime
References
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Churchill, Ward (November 1, 2003). On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U. S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality. AK Press. ISBN 978-1902593791.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "speeches > god's judgement of white america (the chickens come home to roost)". malcolm x. 1960-02-05. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^
. YouTube. Retrieved 2015-07-29. - :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Malcolm X Scores U.S. and Kennedy". The New York Times. December 2, 1963. p. 21. Retrieved July 28, 2008.
- ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Justice_of_Roosting_Chickens#cite_ref-essay_5-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Justice_of_Roosting_Chickens#cite_ref-essay_5-2) Churchill, Ward (September 2001). ":{":(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:Some People Push Back": On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". Pockets of Resistance. 20.
- ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Justice_of_Roosting_Chickens#cite_ref-ghosts-of-911_6-1) Churchill, Ward (Spring 2005). "The Ghosts of 9-1-1: Reflections on History, Justice and Roosting Chickens". Coloradoaim.org. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "2004 Gustavus Myers Book Awards: Honorable Mention". Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights. December 2004. Archived from the original on 2006-02-14.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Jury Says Professor Was Wrongly Fired". The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
- :{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Search - Supreme Court of the United States". Supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
|
<ul style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg" width="%225%22" height="%2213%22%3E%0A%09%3Ccircle" cx="%222.5%22" cy="%229.5%22" r="%222.5%22" fill="%22%2300528c%22/%3E%0A%3C/svg%3E%0A" display="display" inline="inline" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" line-height="line-height" inherit="inherit" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><li class="nv-view" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AK_Press" title="Template:AK Press" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><abbr title="View this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-style: initial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none;">v</abbr></a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></li><li class="nv-talk" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:AK_Press" title="Template talk:AK Press" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><abbr title="Discuss this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-style: initial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none;">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:AK_Press&action=edit" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none !important; padding: 0px !important;"><abbr title="Edit this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-style: initial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none;">e</abbr></a></li></ul> |
<ul style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg" width="%225%22" height="%2213%22%3E%0A%09%3Ccircle" cx="%222.5%22" cy="%229.5%22" r="%222.5%22" fill="%22%2300528c%22/%3E%0A%3C/svg%3E%0A" display="display" inline="inline" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" line-height="line-height" inherit="inherit" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><li class="nv-view" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AK_Press" title="Template:AK Press" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><abbr title="View this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-style: initial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none;">v</abbr></a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></li><li class="nv-talk" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:AK_Press" title="Template talk:AK Press" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><abbr title="Discuss this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-style: initial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none;">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:AK_Press&action=edit" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none !important; padding: 0px !important;"><abbr title="Edit this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; text-decoration-style: initial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none;">e</abbr></a></li></ul> |
|---|---|
| Literature |
|
| Related | |
==
}: