Comments on: Ward Churchill Wins.

By: Erin O'Connor

Erin O'Connor — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:09:09 +0000

Econprof — Great minds. Colorado conducted exactly the sort of review of its hiring, tenure, and post-tenure review procedures alongside its review of Churchill’s academic conduct. It published the results in a 2006 report (https://www.cu.edu/tenurereview/docs/FINAL-REPORT.pdf), and recommended immediate overhaul of its internal systems of peer review. There was candid acknowledgement that the system was failing from the inside out. They have since crafted policy to improve these processes. Of course, there is a long way between policy and implementation — and the distance between the two is precisely what got Colorado into this mess. It will be up to the Colorado faculty to start doing things more responsibly — and it remains to be seen whether they can or will. But the necessary institutional acknowledgements have been openly and decisively made.

By: Margaret Soltan

Margaret Soltan — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:18:29 +0000

Hi Sherman: My response to your comment perhaps can be a response to a number of the comments on this very thoughtful thread.

No doubt my arch rhetoric and bloggy concision has made my position somewhat unclear. I’m not really about laying down rules, implied or otherwise. What I’m doing is responding to a thing that has happened.

A jury has decided a certain thing. I’m not sure it makes much sense to spend time denouncing the jury’s decision. The decision has been made; it tells us something about universities, about tenure, about how universities are perceived, and how they behave. And it will have ramifications.

So the important questions are: What has this told us about us? What can we do differently so that this doesn’t happen again?

Since I believe the jury’s response has to do with its reading of universities writ large, I do think that institutional history (in this case, things like a high-profile, corrupt sports program), and prevailing treatment of tenured professors found guilty of significant academic misconduct (prevailing treatment is to do pretty much nothing — at most, far as I can tell, you dock them a little pay), has got to be looked at as clearly as possible.

If Colorado finds this a punishing and embarrassing verdict (they have to pay Churchill’s court fees, etc.), it should ask itself how to reform itself so that this sort of thing doesn’t happen again. Same way it did (or certainly should have done) after the international scandal a few years ago involving its football team.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3508443.stm

I would ask all of the commenters on this thread: Do you think that local juries don’t have this institutional background in their heads?

By: Sherman Dorn

Sherman Dorn — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:45:53 +0000

Margaret,

The fairness issue has to be restricted by issue — if one person is exonerated though a plagiarist, then it’s much harder to crack down on plagiarism in general. But I don’t see why Colorado’s idiocy with the football team in multiple ways means the faculty can’t set standards for its own on plagiarism. Besides, your implied rule would mean that there is no way for an institution to walk away from the abyss.

By: econprof

econprof — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 04:25:31 +0000

It is easy to gang up on WC. He is not much of a scholar, he is a fraud, he incorporates all the negative cliches associated with a pseudoscientist.
Nevertheless, he got tenure: The university promised to pay him for his services. So he deserves a certain protection, and therefore I cannot disagree with the decision of the jury.

The real question, which I think needs some investigation, is why the hell did the UC give him tenure? I know many people with far more, real, accomplishments who were denied tenure.

So I think it would be time to investigate the Tenure & Promotions (or whatever her name is) committee and start firing a few of the committee members…

By: Bonzo

Bonzo — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:36:46 +0000

No, I am arguing that if you misappropriated funds and it is against the tenure code (for cause), then you should be fired for that reason.

You should NOT be fired for saying that the moon is made of green cheese.

(I’m not trying to argue here, just make my position clear.)

And by the way it is probably easier to get someone fired for embezzlement than for plagiarism. Or scientific dishonesty. (Don’t ask how I know.)

By: Shannon Chamberlain

Shannon Chamberlain — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:18:00 +0000

So, Bonzo, are you arguing that if I misappropriated funds, but other people have done the same and not been held responsible, I also shouldn’t be held responsible until all of the others are punished, too?

By: Bonzo

Bonzo — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:00:40 +0000

With all due respect, I am having a hard time understanding this kerfuffle.

If someone says that the moon is made of green cheese or anything else crazy, you can’t fire him.

If he has done something in violation of the tenure code (cause) of the institution you can fire him. Now unfortunately, a lot of the wrong stuff being done – in his case – has been done by a lot of other people and they have not been fired.

So I don’t see how him not getting fired in this case amounts to a free pass, or have I missed something important?

By: Profane

Profane — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:50:05 +0000

Rapidly heading off topic. . .but I cannot resist.

It would, indeed, be difficult to prove any first amendment violations in TAFKAU’s analogy, but there would be two clear fourth amendment violations:

1. An illegal seizure of the vehicle and driver, and,
2. An illegal search of the vehicle (unless the driver consented voluntarily).

The evidence would be tossed and the officer could be subject to a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit.

By: Shannon Chamberlain

Shannon Chamberlain — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:54:24 +0000

Also, I’m not sure I understand the argument that because CU has done other bad shit, Ward Churchill gets a free pass. Because of the school’s failure (and Harvard’s failure?) to prosecute other misconduct, nobody’s guilty of it until everything at CU is perfect? They have to start somewhere, and maybe starting with a guy whose research is both cribbed and laughably political isn’t a bad place. Also, I don’t think you get to be Ward Churchill and condemn other people for their politically-motivated decision-making at the same time (cf. his argument, presented entirely without corroborating evidence, that John Smith brought smallpox to the Virginia colony deliberately).

By: Shannon Chamberlain

Shannon Chamberlain — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:36:58 +0000

Yeah, my concern is the same as Eric’s here: the judgment of the faculty senate should be final for all academic matters. He already faced a jury of his peers, and lost. Chair Marianne Wesson’s specialty is due process, and from the article Eric quoted and almost everything else that’s been written about this, it looks like she did whatever was in her power to assure that he had a fair hearing on the plagiarism charge. Other commenters are right that you don’t get a free pass just because stupid things you said put you under the microscope. The question of guilt is or should be independent of how it was found out, barring any sort of Fourth Amendment violation. My first reaction to this story was to assume that he’d been fired for his little Eichmanns, but subsequent reading led me to conclude that it was just simple academic misconduct. And he would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those darn bloggers. In a lot of ways, this is no different than a professor getting more carefully scrutinized after winning a MacArthur or the like.