The Eugene Or. Register -Guard has an editorial praising both those who protected Ward Churchill's right to free speech and the university process which uncovered his many lies, fabrications, plagarisms and the like.
While I agree in essence, I keep asking why didn't anyone look at his credentials, articles, and claims [about Native American ancestry for example] before this whole thing blew up? Were they so excited about getting a supposed Native American on faculty that they were willing to ignore some of the warning signs?
How about the fact that he did not have a Ph.D. and yet was made chair of a department? [Apparently he was honest about this and yet the university hired him anyway.]
Was the university willing to make such a serious compromise [the Ph.D. is the university union card] a reflection of how little it thought of a deparmtnet of Ethnic Studies [which is where Churchill was housed]?
If this is indeed correct, it's behavior such as this which gives affirmative action its bad name.
In the end the university acquitted itself well. Before that however....
Dear Dr. Lipstadt,
ReplyDeleteAs a U. of Wisconsin undergrad, I've followed the Churchill story beginning with the notoriety given his "Roosting Chickens," essay circa 9/11. I wrote a post on him at my blog: RandomlyRational, titled Privilege v. Provocation.
Thank you for your service and work.
Respectfully,
Scott Scofield