Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating and plagiarizing in his published writings, sued the university, claiming he was "unfairly targeted for controversial remarks he made post-9/11. CU found him to be a plagiarist with poor academic integrity." (Daily Camera, March 3).
The author argues that
both Churchill and Irving exhibit the same kind of hubris: both felt, and feel, that nothing they could state, no matter how outrageous, could hurt them. Both of these two self-defined geniuses forgot the basic principle of being a successful prevaricator and that is: do not bring attention to yourself when you know perfectly well you have things that you wish to hide or at least not have generally discussed. Both of these two men used either bogus "historical research" works or, when unable to find data for their ideology, created the data out of whole cloth.
Regarding Churchill's court case, the author observes that
Both Irving and Churchill could have gone along spreading their nefarious lies and fabrications and, in Churchill's case, plagiarism [not one of Irving's "sins" as far as I know] had they not both been blinded by their hubris,Churchill and his attorneys don't even bother to defend their case by solid evidence against the accusations of plagiarism, subterfuge and scholastic inappropriateness made by CU. Instead, their thrust seems to be to try to disregard such charges and claim that Churchill is being persecuted because of his merely unpopular (but very shrill!) article in which he claimed that the victims of the Twin Tower attack of 9/11 were nothing other but "little Eichmanns."
Had Irving not sued me, we would never have exposed the extent of his lies and distortions. Had Churchill not reveled in saying the outrageous there would not have been the in depth investigation of his plagiarism and his lies about his academic record.
[once again thanks to Sara Salzman for bringing this to my attention]
9 comments:
The comic part of the Ward Churchill show developed last week when Ward revealed his newest defense.
He is claiming that he did not plagiarize because he was in fact the ghost writer of those works which he quoted without citing.
So since he was the ghost author he had no need to cite himself.
What's more he claims this is common in academic circles.
None of the scholars he claims to have ghosted are supporting his claim to be the actual author of their works.
For all the hilarity of a really, really lame defense please go to
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/us/25churchill.html?_r=1
Are you real, Frau Lipstadt, or you are a fake like the holocaust? I've just met your friend, her Hoffman. He asked me to inform you that the swastica is broken for good. Her Hitler missed his main goal... what a shame...
we are here, frau Lipstadt, no matter how many Teutonics are here as well. BTW: Obama said: "Hi, Frau Lipstadt".
eldadk:
You get a -9 on the Troll-o-Meter.
Steve said... about 'eldadk'
'You get a -9 on the Troll-o-Meter'
Actually I enjoy Eldadk scribblings, he's a regular on the www and surfaces now and then in an well known Holocaust sites guest book, he's a person who claims the Jews murdered 9 millions Slavs, then a week later he ups it to 20 million, followed by 32 million Slavs dead. I've nicknamed him TRAWNIKI, whether he can guess why? is highly debatable.
"Actually I enjoy Eldadk scribblings"
You did better than me, Fairplay. I had no idea what he was talking about. I actually thought that he was perhaps high on drugs.
Hell will freeze over quicker before I will be allowed to have my say!
Leonardo
Ward Churchill was acquitted last week by a jury of six who, the New York Times reports, were convinced by his argument that his dismissal was due to his political views.
What is the next step?
Anybody know.
The jury of six got it wrong, the University of Colorado got it right.
Churchill is like every other coward, whether pseudo-historian (David Irving) or pseudo-saviour of the downtrodden: they can never accept the scrutiny and subsequent repudiation meted out by those academics who are diligent enough to rise above the cheap sciolism that besots and defines idiots like David Irving, Churchill, and every other brain-dead hate-monger. Instead, they become litigious tyrants, much like those up here in Canada operating our Human Rights Commission(s), who extort the limitless power of the state to pummel even the most defenseless and poorest of honest men and women for speaking the truth about their unctuous accusers.
Ward Churchill's litigation has exposed his personality as the bully he really is, a blemish that will stain his existence in much the same way as Irving's imprudent litigation has stigmatized his false claim as an "expert" historian of the Holocaust.
"These fools live in earnest." -Louis Simpson
Happy Pesach, Prof. Lipstadt. Have fun!
Post a Comment