Ward Churchill could lose his job

[IGBT]

Text
...the grey haired pony tail's in the lime light again..still thinks he's Indian..I wonder what else he's only an honorary of sorts..

But a report by acting Chancellor Phil DiStefano said "there is serious doubt about his Indian identity." It said Churchill claimed in writing to be an enrolled member of the Keetowah Band of the Cherokees, but the tribe's principal chief told the university that Churchill is an honorary associate member, not an enrolled member.

 

[Harvey]

Good riddance. Churchill is fraud from beginning to end. :|

The panel also is investigating allegations that Churchill, who has tenure, plagiarized others' work, misinterpreted evidence and fabricated details in his research.

He's entitiled to spout his idiocy on his own time, but he should never be allowed to claim the stature and presumed credibility of the title of "Professor" at any university.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Although Churchill has a right to make an ass of himself, the consequences of his actions are all his doing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I guess his chickens are coming to roost! :laugh:

CsG

 

[kylebisme]

I'm 1/16 Cherokee, but I can't prove it because my great grandfather *was* a sheriff who declared his wife and their decedents legally white due to the oppression Indians faced at the time. It's pretty obvious when looking at my father that he is 1/4 Cherokee, but I can't prove that part of my heritage legally by any means.

Point being, Ward Churchill is clearly a fraud in many respects; but that doesn't mean that is lying with his claim to Native American decent.

 

[arsbanned]

Well, yeah, he would still be lying about his Indian heritage. He's claiming to be more than what he is. That's lying. He may have a sliver of Indian in him; but he would still be lying.
Bu Bye to Mr. Churchhill. *waves*

 

[kylebisme]

Would my father be lying to make the claim being 1/4? What about his mother who was 1/2? Or her mother who was full blooded? None of them could legally prove it after the change in records, but it wouldn't make them liers for making the claim.

 

[arsbanned]

No, but Ward Churchhill seems to be claiming more than 1/4 or 1/2. Therein lies the difference, IMO.
Essentially, IMO, the guy is a scumbag for comparing WTC victims to Eichmann. He has a right to say what he wants to, but if he violated some part of his employer's ethics rules, they should have the ability to fire his a$S.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Would my father be lying to make the claim being 1/4? What about his mother who was 1/2? Or her mother who was full blooded? None of them could legally prove it after the change in records, but it wouldn't make them liers for making the claim.

That's not the point. This is just one more case where Churchill's credentials and crediblity have crumbled into vapor. The more important issue is whether such demonstrated liar like him, who makes mind numbingly stupid statements comparing those who died in the Towers on 9-11 to nazis and calling them "little Eichmanns," should be paid from public funds to influence students as a professor in a public university.

The obvious answer is, NO! :|

 

[kylebisme]

Well I agree tht is "little Eichmanns" comment was ridiculous; I just don't care for the metality of "he lied on this and that, so he is a lying-liar and everything he says must be a lie."

 

[kylebisme]

Oh yeah, and I'm not sure what you are getting at here:

Originally posted by: arsbanned
No, but Ward Churchhill seems to be claiming more than 1/4 or 1/2.

If you are not full blooded or half, you have to be less. But do you call a kid with a white father and a black mother a lier for consdering himself black?

 

[arsbanned]

It's really not what I feel about being full blooded or not, I'm not some racial purist, being of a mixed background myself (1/2 Italian, 1/2 English, Scotch/Irish blah blah etc etc). I'm saying his employer seems to think he misrepresented himself and that may be against their rules of conduct, which they have every right of enforcing.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Well I agree tht is "little Eichmanns" comment was ridiculous; I just don't care for the metality of "he lied on this and that, so he is a lying-liar and everything he says must be a lie."

He plagarized "original" artwork, and he faked information in his scholastic research. That's enough to raise a presumption he's lied about other things in his past, but we don't need to get into any of that to know he's unqualified to continue teaching at a university.

Would you believe him? Would you want your kids subjected to his garbage?

 

[kylebisme]

Nah, I don't tend to belive people who have shown a lack of crediblity; but I don't don't argee with calling them out as lieing about a particular issue without when such a claim is not provable, no matter how much crediblity they lack.

As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[ciba]

I don't think you're seeing the problem here. He claimed a certification he didn't have. He could certainly be 100% indian and still be subject to discipline by his employer.

It seems to me this is the equivalent to a doctor claiming he's board certified. Once called on the carpet his defense is "but I'm a doctor."

 

[arsbanned]

Yeah, if the University requires that their professors be honest about their background and he broke that rule, which apparently he has, then it's all over but the crying. I don't really give a damn if he's a full-blooded Sioux chief. He really ought to lay off the peace pipe though.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although Churchill has a right to make an ass of himself, the consequences of his actions are all his doing.

Exactly.