Saturday, March 5


I could understand this better, if when you distill it all down it's strictly an issue of "academic freedom" and whether it's appropriate to terminate the contract of a tenured professor over controversial remarks he has made. Such a decision must be grounded in ethics and, from a pragmatic point of view, in protecting the university against a lawsuit for wrongful discharge.

But what became of the investigation over Ward Churchill purportedly having falsified his resume at time of hire, his claim that he's part Cherokee Indian, his alleged plagiarizing the academic work of others, his alleged plagiarizing the artistic work of others, and even his video-taped hostility toward reporters covering this controversy and trying to elicit explanations from him? Are those not a concern of University of Colorado trustees? Were they fully investigated? Has Ward Churchill been vindicated in these areas?

UC's reputation has been irreparably harmed by this fiasco (as have the feelings of the families of the victims of "9/11") and the bad guy will come out of this with money-making speech engagements and book publishing deals, and isn't that the way anymore? But if the blame is properly apportioned, most of it resides with the people at UC who voted him tenure so soon, in such a convoluted fashion, and without Ward having even earned the customary doctorate degree or proven himself worthy. If Ward's head doesn't roll, the heads of others' should.