Skip to main content

View Diary: Ward Churchill wins lawsuit against Colorado (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    litho, Aunt Martha, MAORCA

    Churchill's works were probably scrutinized more closely because he made himself a public figure, but once the plagiarism was found out, he was treated no differently from anyone else who might have committed it.

    The bolded part is what I have a problem with, and probably what the diarist does, too.

    •  Funny, I have the opposite reaction (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mll, annetteboardman, MKSinSA, indubitably

      My feeling is if someone is a fraud and a liar but want to keep their job anyway, they probably ought to keep a low profile rather than making a big obnoxious spectacle of themselves.

      "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by jrooth on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:20:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yup, and it strikes me as an interesting parallel (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, litho, capelza, Aunt Martha

      to the discussion about Holder's dropping the charges against Stevens: whether the Senator is a shameless crook or not, Holder apparently felt that prosecutorial ethics were more important.  

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:21:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No parallel (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        markw, annetteboardman, jrooth, MKSinSA

        The university's ethics were fine. It defended his right to say unpopular things and the principle of academic freedom., even though the university president suffered a lot of abuse for doing so. It also stood up for the principle of academic integrity.

        CU Boulder hasn't always behaved so ethically (see: Buffalo football program), but in this case it's conduct was admirable. Comparing the university to the prosecutors in the Stevens case is uncalled for.

        •  *shrugs* (6+ / 0-)

          We're just going to have to disagree.  The fact is, the jury decided that the investigation was politically motivated, and therefore considered the evidence inadmissible.  I don't really care if you think the parallel with the Stevens case is uncalled for, because there are similar dynamics underpinning both decisions.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:45:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We can agree to disagree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            markw

            But it's not just a difference of opinion. Your view has no basis, except for your apparently being uninformed about the case.

            There's no evidence of anything resembling misconduct on CU Boulder's part. It did everything in accordance with the relevant ethical principles -- safeguarding academic freedom and academic integrity.

            In the Stevens case, the prosecution clearly violated ethical rules requiring them to provide the defense with any exculpatory evidence that the prosecution had.

            So you have no basis to assert similar dynamics.

    •  It's not like he had nothing to do with that. (9+ / 0-)

      Few people were more involved with promoting Ward Churchill than Ward Churchill.

      If you're going to put yourself out there, you're going to attract scrutiny.  Those of us who do our academic work with honesty and integrity have nothing to worry about, except that people might disagree with what we write.  Those who do their work dishonestly should probably just settle in with their tenure, keep a low profile, and hope nobody finds out.

      Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

      by mistersite on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 06:22:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can you explain your problem with it? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poliscizac, markw, MKSinSA

      I don't get it. Why does that make his firing any less appropriate?

      If a murderer under an assumed identity becomes an activist and makes controversial comments which draws public scrutiny and leads to his unmasking as a murderer, should he not be prosecuted and jailed (after a fair trial)?

      (I'm not calling Churchill a murderer, or comparing him to one; I'm just trying to draw out the logic here.)

      If the concern here is academic freedom and free speech, there's no problem. The university stood by his tenure until it became clear he'd forfeited it for reasons unrelated to his political speech.

      But if you want to claim the protection of academic freedom, you have a corresponding obligation not to abuse that freedom by committing academic fraud.

      •  I do not have a problem... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pico

        ...if they are unrelated. If the guy makes some statement and an independent agent looks into his background and discovers plagiarism and he eventually gets fired, that's ok with me.

        However, the school should not at all look into his plagiarism history (again, lets stipulate that it's true, I have no opinion on this) simply because they don't like him or because of political pressure because of statements he made.

        The problem isn't what private entities do, the problem is what the school does.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site