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....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dear Dr. Lipstadt,
As 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
Post a Comment