You are here
Home > Posts tagged "Ward Churchill"

But of course Anglo-centric American History is a Core Credit.

So, part of the Arizona "show your papers" lynch "law" has a complete defunding of Ethnic Studies which reflect, cumulatively, the histories of a substantial majority of the people in the state. Specifically at U of A Tucson the Tucson Police RIOT squad were called to disperse and arrest students and advocates who exercised their rights to make statements opposing the slashing of Mexican-American studies, African American Studies and Native American Studies from the curriculum and the denial and decertification of degrees in which Ethnic Studies are counted as Core Credits. Much like the illegal harrassment of Ward Churchill in Denver, only on a grand scale. At the required-by-law "does anybody object?" session the opponents of slashing E.S. were railroaded by an arbitrary time limit, any who spoke longer than the allowed time, was arrested. One dragged away in chains by the Tucson Riot Pigs was a respected and tenured professor, she is 69 years old and disabled. We'll have a huge crowd of the Racists here in the West Side of Colorado Springs over the Memorial Day weekend, people whose anguished and shrill shrieking screams rise up in a mighty Whiney Chorus if anybody DARES suggest that the Officially Approved "White Side of the Story" is wrong on many counts and the "settling" of the American West came about at the cost of economic, biological and siege warfare against Americans based solely on Racial Grounds. Murdering thieves like Stanton and Palmer and Chivington, will be honored as Heroes. Stanton and Palmer received HUGE federal Corporate Welfare subsidies for their railroad enterprises, one square mile Section for each linear mile of railroad track, approved at the same time treaties were drawn up with the Western tribes saying they would always be allowed to keep their lifestyle, and their LIVES, and their freedom.... something Abe Lincoln was signing away with the Railroad Act. Where the Rich Bitch capitalists were given the right to summarily execute people who "trespassed" on "Their" properties. Executions carried out both by Private Mercenary Thugs like the Pinkertons and Wells Fargo agents, and by the United States Army. All of whom will be celebrated as heroes in a publicly funded subsidized event two weeks hence. Prepare for the shrill screams of "Racism" to be lofted, once more, by the Anglo-Saxon Establishment, especially those heirs to General Palmers Federally Subsidized Corporate Welfare Real Estate Scam. Like, most of City Council and all of the County Commissioners. How DARE anybody suggest that the Indian Wars were Ethnic Cleansing in support of their Corporate Profit Margin? Just like at the U.A. Tucson board of regents "Meat (deliberate sic) The People" hearings. Amazing how their "non-racist" anti-immigrant law included Abject racism like that, isn't it? So they won't offer a degree program in Non-Anglo Ethnic studies but WILL continue ta have degrees, even Doctorates, for "American" History from the strictly W.A.S.P. point of view.

Give the Black Hills back to the Lakota

Close down the strip-mine gold operation in Deadwood, stop maintaining the blasphemous idols carved onto Mount Rushmore, stop maintaining the Custer National Monument, let them rot into the Earth. They poison the very heart of the Earth Mother, Wakan Tonka. That means not "Great Spirit" like it's usually translated, but The Great Buffalo. The Lakota and other "sioux" tribes, and other Northern Plains tribes hold the Black Hills to be exactly that Heart. It's said that from satellite images the Black Hills look like a massive bison heart. That might be a Rorshacht test, an inkblot or a cloud that you can project onto, or a seance where the medium will tell you, or rather, you'll tell him/her exactly what you wanted to hear. Maybe, but it sure does look like a bison heart. Mount Rushmore and the Gold and now, coal mining operations are literally carving the still beating heart of the Earth. The Earth screams at us to stop, but the Big Money men don't listen. They carve images of some of their leading Capitalists onto the walls of that heart, and command all the people of America to pay to maintain their blasphemous idolatry. Deadwood was founded by Lt Colonel George A. Custer while he was still in the Army. An illegal encampment of illegal immigrants onto the ultimate in American Land. Unlike migrant workers with the same title, they came not to try make an honest living, not to keep alive the hope of citizenship, the fabled "land of opportunity" touted in the propaganda. They came to slaughter Wakan Tonka slowly, carve her open and cut holes in her heart while she's still alive. The Supreme Court very recently ruled that the land was, indeed, illegally seized, and offered as repayment ... a settlement that would be less than a hundredth of a penny on every ten dollars taken out by the greed freaks. Close down Sturgis, close down Deadwood. Open the gates of the Concentration/POW camps like Wounded Knee and Pine Ridge "reservations". Give the land back and save your Pious self-righteous "concern" for whether the Lakota and other sioux will make a profit from THEIR land. Don't ask what they will do with it, it's none of your God-damned business. You could use that same logic to lock me into servitude, where all my property (such as it is) could be seized and administered by "those who can manage it better". Who's the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, Hosni Mubarak, Queen Elizabeth the Second? Hmm? Whoever it is, by the logic which denies the Lakota and, by extension, every tribe in America, full title to their lands, anybody who is NOT the richest man in the world could have his property seized and "administered" for him by those who are richer. Give them back their land and don't worry about what they'll do with it. It will be a damn sight better than what the Thieves have done with it. None of that "Noble Savage" crap either, it's protectionist talk,

Ward Churchill wants his dollar back

DENVER-- Remember the dollar bill awarded to Professor Churchill last year because the jury took him at his word that return of his tenure at the University of Colorado was the chief demand of his lawsuit for unlawful dismissal? Judge Larry [K]naves vacated the award and the verdict, which is why Churchill v CU is now being reprised for the Colorado Court of Appeals. As Lawyer David Lane outlined for the reporters, Churchill wants the reinstatement of an original secondary claim dismissed without a trial, he wants to resume teaching at CU Boulder, and precisely for its symbolism, Ward Churchill wants that dollar back. This post's title is my guess at the Denver News headline. Actually, mention of the solitary dollar was made in court, but from the other side. Believe it or not, CU argued against having to reinstate Ward Churchill because it adjudged the small award to be indicative of the 2009 jury's intent. Instead of believing the jury's statement, that they chose reinstatement in lieu of awarding damages, CU pretended that the trivial remuneration meant they couldn't give a fig if the wronged professor got his job back either. Oral arguments were heard today by the Colorado Court of Appeals, in a temporary venue located in the Denver Post building, which until recently was also home to the Rocky Mountain News. Was this a supreme irony, or like the usual M.O. in matters of Native American affairs, a direct insult? Ward Churchill had to plead for redress with authorities under the roof of the establishment most responsible for having slandered him. How did it go? The room was packed, the judges did not appear to show their hand and promised a judgment would be forthcoming. Probably they say that to everybody. David Lane gave his usual masterful performance, parrying cuts to the quick from the three judges as if his client's claims were a foregone conclusion. Lane was ready with his trademark descriptive quips, Churchill's persecution dubbed a "torchlight parade" where the CU trustees fell over each other to grab the microphone to denounce his September 11th Little Eichmanns quote, even as later they claim quasi-judicial immunity for terminating Churchill without prejudice. Providing the perfect foil was CU's counsel Patrick O'Rourke, the down syndrome-coiffed wunderbreadkind, who has me convinced there's a niche for the incompetent lawyer shtick. How else to battle charismatic speakers like Lane, than play the everyman with a limp to elicit the jury's sympathies. Lingering on my mind, as CU's attack-defender lost his train of thought and asked a judge to repeat his question, was the news that O'Rourke is reportedly shortlisted for an appointment as judge, perhaps in recompense for his dispatch of Churchill v CU through the backdoor. O'Rourke raised the inanity of having been presented with no evidence that the Boulder campus suffered a chilling effect as a result of Professor Churchill's first amendment rights being violated. One judge ran with the theme, until Lane was able to politely corral the sophomoric philosophy quandary. I

Power already knows the truth

As the election nears, I recall Ward Churchill's rejection of a modern activist's purported objective, "speaking truth to power," as left-leaning voices speak up to validate the Democratic Party's inherent claim to represent what the Republicans do not. As if the corporate status quo doesn't know very well the reforms it is resisting. Speaking truth to power is not tilting at windmills, it's flapping your arms in a charade, to convey your divination of a windmill's function, to responses of shoulder-shrugging at the omniscience of power, literally. Democrats have absolutely nothing to offer except lip service. What else is new. So why are even stalwart leftists calling this horse race like they've got a candidate in the running?

Ward Churchill speaks on which settler invasion wrote the book on Apartheid

Ward Churchill spoke in Tucson on Friday and Brenda Norrell has posted the footage. Watching the ex-CU professor speak, I can't help but think about the university students' loss. They're missing the lamentably rarefied perspectives he offers of course, but more important, the inspiration gained from such an engaging luminary. Throughout his lectures, Churchill likes to put questions back at his audience. He understands, if I can presume to project his rationale, that a mentor's role is to bounce ideas around, and be sure his students have minds open enough to let them resonate. It's also a sign of someone fully confident with what they are teaching. Churchill gives you the impression he's interested in the best argument you've got, and I believe him, but in reality he's going to have few peers up to the task. When it's time for Q and A, Prof. Churchill calls it mud-wrestling, and welcomes all shots, "even spit wads." He draws the line at brick bats, because he says, one might bounce off his head and hit somebody else. He warns, as if he's had practice, "because someone might get hurt. I can assure you it won't be me." I wished at that moment that Tucson was not so far from Churchill's curiously vile detractors, who attended his trial in Denver, and who hold bitch fests online about every Churchinalia for reasons unspecified. I predict they're remunerated; the love-to-hate pretext is wearing thin, these yahoos are pro-Israeli tea-baggers. So there's no Drunkablog or Pirate Ballerina there tonight to take the "perfessor's" challenge. Although wouldn't such an exchange have been simply tedious? I recall this dismal attempt mounted against "Wart" by a couple CU college Republicans, it was just embarrassing. Have Churchill's online critics ever confronted him in person I wonder? They can spout off in the safety of anonymity, and that's about it. Churchill's speech to the predominantly Anglo and O'odham border activists was about the bigger issues behind the border wall. The theme of the gathering was Apartheid in America, and Churchill demonstrated how South African Apartheid came of the successful colonial methods practiced in the United States. These were the strategies employed by the Germans in taking and settling the Eastern Front during WWII, and of course the goals of Israel in Palestine. Churchill described how settler invasions vary from colonial administration. In the latter case, the colonizers can go home, in the former, they stay. Another distinction is critical, the settlers aren't moving to a land and becoming part of the social system, they remain citizens of the occupying force. They bring their identity and the foreign system with them, to apply against the people indigenous to the land. The process involves two steps: displace enough of the natives to make room for yourselves, but leave just enough to serve as a labor pool, for all the building that is required of empire building. You've need of only a portion of the original population, to do the manual labor required

Ward Churchill to speak for O’odham

According to Censored News, Activist and scholar Ward Churchill will speak at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson, 4831 W. 22nd St., on November 13, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. to benefit O'odham VOICE Against the Wall, which since 2003 has organized and advocated for the traditional O’odham leaders and elders of the Tohono O’odham communities in the southern territory of the United States and northern territory of Mexico. Professor Churchill’s talk is part of the “Apartheid in America: Surviving Occupation in O’odham Lands” O'odham activist Ofelia Rivas will also participate. The event is sponsored by the Dry River Radical Resource Center, the Earth First! Journal, and Voices against the Wall. Here's some background on the O'odham struggle: By J. D. Hendricks, 2004 TIAMAT PUBLICATIONS #5 The People Who Emerged From the Earth Over two thousand years ago the descendents of the O’odham moved into the southwestern region of the area now claimed by the U.S. as the state of Arizona. 1 The O’odham have had one of the longest histories of contact with the forces of European colonization compared with the rest of the native North American peoples. The O’odham’s first contact with Spanish invaders took place in the mid 16th century; nearly one hundred years before the colonization of the North Atlantic coast and Great Lakes regions were begun by the French and English colonists. As such, the history of the O’odham provides a good context for an investigation of the colonization of Native North America, and more specifically, an investigation of the interplay between, and results of, the varied responses to colonization – that of collaboration, accommodation, and resistance. Many histories of the O’odham refer to these desert people as the Papago. The term Papago was a name given to the O’odham by the Spanish colonizers, and is likely the result of a Spanish corruption of the O’odham word “papabi” which was the O’odham name for one of their principal bean varieties. Thus, the Spanish colonizers term for the O’odham (Papago) came to mean “the bean eaters.” 2 For the purposes of this study I will refrain from the use of the term Papago and will refer to “the people” 3 by their traditional pre-colonial name. 4 As is often the case, with the name Papago being a good example, European constructs are often imposed upon indigenous peoples by the historians that seek to portray their past. This result can occur when historians seek to glorify European norms and traditions at the expense of indigenous ones, and can also be the result of the subconscious indoctrination of the historian by the dominant culture – in this case that of western style industrial civilization. In other cases it can be the result of a simple uncritical usage of language. One of the most dominant and reoccurring “civilized” constructs imposed upon indigenous peoples history is the commonly understood notion that the O’odham, or any other indigenous North American culture for that

Judge Larry Naves mocks justice in Ward Churchill ruling

Yesterday Judge Larry Naves vacated the jury verdict in the Ward Churchill trial and refused to compel CU to reinstate Churchill saying that to do so would send a message to students that the University of Colorado "tolerates academic misconduct." This, despite the fact that the jury found that charges of academic misconduct were made in order to silence Churchill without appearing to violate his free speech rights and wrongly fired him based on the trumped up charges. The judge also failed to award any damages to Churchill, nor did he rule that CU must pay his legal fees. Further, Judge Naves' 42-page ruling indicated that CU was a quasi-governmental body and, as such, should have been shielded from litigation to begin with. Of course, Churchill attorney David Lane will appeal the ruling to a higher court, hopefully one that has more respect for the judicial system and the Constitution. This isn't over, but how unfortunate that the bastard Judge Naves has prolonged the charade.

Pioneering human shields since 9-11-01

Ward Churchill called them Little Eichmanns, but if that's giving the World Trade Center workers too much credit, at minimum they were human shields, masking the Command & Control Center of America's economic war machine.   The US military is quick to blame its foes for using human shields, to explain the collateral damage we always inflict --Iraq, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah-- but who more deliberately than the USA? The huge weapons industry makes all fifty states legitimate military targets, and now because armed drones are piloted from US soil, the homeland war zone extends into our homeland, for which the American public is the human shield.

UCSB Hillel students Rebecca Joseph, Tova Hausman highlight poor education

Today's university campuses have to deal with College Republicans, ACTA and NeoMcCarthyists. The latest uneducable creeps shopped their leftist-professor- horror-story to the Anti-Defamation League, to brand their teacher's criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic." UCSB senior Rebecca Joseph and junior Tova Hausman both took exception to Professor William Robinson's Sociology Listserv email comparing Israel's mop up operation in Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. Below are the words they cut and pasted together to accuse Robinson. The literacy level of these two students is probably on par for Twilight fans, but definitely unbecoming for the University of California system. The first letter is reputedly from a college senior. Rebecca Joseph's opening argument was plagiarized from the internet, but she continues to scold Professor Robinson for straying from her idea of what makes a university professor. The second complaint from UCSB junior Tova Hausman copies the first letter's form, but adds the accusation of sexual misconduct for leaving her feeling raped. Is it unfair to put simple college students under national scrutiny like this? From their own words they show themselves to be rather helpless. But what to do when students, or some unscrupulous backers, are taking aim at a respected tenured professor? It's serious business. Organizations like ACTA and Hillel are out to enforce a veritable Right Wing PC rectitude. As if it's politically incorrect to make fun of uneducated on campus! Keeping educators silenced was easier during the Bush administration, but the dampers are still on Academic Freedom. Ward Churchill may have won his case in court against the University of Colorado, but opinionated faculty are still few and far between. The latest attack against William Robinson attempts to reinforce more of the same. Probably by now Hillel is wishing they'd coaxed a better educated pair of students to face off against Robinson. The administrators who received the complaint letters should have earmarked the girls for a remedial English refresher in anticipation of their graduation. But let's look beyond the cheap shots. The accusations inarticulated here are scurrilous where they are not outright illogical. You be the judge. First Student Complaint Here's the first complaint received by UCSB, from Rebecca Joseph, Vice-president of the Santa Barbara campus Orthodox Jewish Chabad. Interestingly, UCSB has a number of pro-Israel action groups: Hillel, Jewish Awareness Movement on Campus, American Students for Israel, Stand With Us, AIPAC and the Israeli Palestinian Film Festival (which judging by the lineup runs films only by un-self-critical Israelis and sympathetic Palestinians). Here is Rebecca Joseph's complaint, uncorrected. To Whom It May Concern: On Monday, january 19, at 1:02 pm, I received an email from Professor Robinson for the course Sociology of Globalization (Soc 130SG). The subject of the email was "Parallel images of Nazis and Israelis." This email compared the aggression of the Nazis to the Jews in Germany, to that which is going on between Palestine and Israel today. Professor Robinson wrote the first three paragraphs including the following: "Gaza is Israel's Warsaw..." In addition to his few words, he attached

UCSB Prof William Robinson pro-Semite

Wouldn't you think it bad form for Israeli militants to behave like Nazis, while immunizing themselves with the self-righteous indignation that any criticism of their actions can simply be dismissed as "anti-Semitic?" Photographs and confessions emerging from the IDF's atrocities in Gaza just beg comparison the German Einsatzgruppen in Poland. Earlier this year UC Santa Barbara professor William Robinson forwarded an email photo essay to a UCSB listserv, the already much-circulated side by side comparison to the WWII atrocities. Two students complained, plagiarizing stock IDF lingo. Now the Anti-Defamation League wants Robinson to recant. With IDF propagandists pouring on the bullshit, let's revisit the documents. As has already been noted, Professor Robinson is a harsh critic of US foreign policy, and already a likely target for the goon squad enforcers of Western Capitalism. Not many of America's actions are defensible, so Robinson has to be attacked by desperate means. Lucky for the lackey-jackals, Robinson chose to criticize Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians of Gaza. Bingo! The Israeli propaganda machine has armed aspiring Israel-defenders with a blanket rebuttal: just yell "ANTI-SEMITISM!" And what a load of crap that is. Much turns on the definition of "anti-Semitism." It packs the punch of meaning someone who hates Jews, but the advocates of Zionism have expanded the definition into 3-D! Zionist apologist Nathan Sharansky has coined the 3D definition of ant-Semitism: demonization of Israel, double standards, and delegitimization. You don't have to look closely to note that those points outline all the rebuttals of criticisms of Israel and any question of the legitimacy of the Zionist usurpation of Palestine. The criticisms posed by those concerned for the fate of Gaza are the same expressed by a large portion of the Israeli Jewish population as well. But the US Israeli lobby, militantly Zionist, has the complicity of the US war-mongering corporate media, thus the IDF Megaphone protestations get traction. These are the same cheap shots leveled against Ward Churchill. By flooding the internet to create the sensation that the indignation was shared, the IDF spammers have been successful in slandering these dissenting academics. Since we're seeing this technique being slopped unto our comment forums, let's examine the statement for which Robinson is being attacked. First we'll present Robinson's email. The next post will feature the ensuing letters of complaint, two from UCSB students, and third from the ADL. Original Email Here is Professor Robinson's original email, including his attachment of the Judith Stone article. This accompanied the aforementioned photo essay he forwarded. Subject: [socforum] parallel images of Nazis and Israelis From: "William I. Robinson" ... Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:00:05 ... If Martin Luther King were alive on this day of January 19, 2009, there is no doubt that he would be condemning the Israeli aggression against Gaza along with U.S. military and political support for Israeli war crimes, or that he would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Palestinians. I am forwarding some horrific, parallel images of Nazi atrocities against the Jews and Israeli atrocities

US Army blankets are generic today

When I was assembling my dorm room kit for college, I wanted an army blanket as a bed cover. For reasons I must have understood better then, the heavy duty olive drab wool, emblazoned with a U.S. monogram, was inarguably cool. Its generic quality was iconic, thus it had a caché more authentic than a stack of Izods. I considered my Army blanket to be the No. 2 Pencil of bed linens. I forgot about that blanket until the Ward Churchill trial in Denver, when the contention arose whether the US army spread small pox to North Dakota Indians by means of infected blankets. Native American oral tradition has been retelling this tale, but the White Man's narrative is pushing back. The ignoble suggestion remains a penciled notation in American History texts, except by scholars such as Churchill, because anti-revisionists want to see more proof. Deniers seem to willfully overlook that perpetrators might have cloaked their trail, sooner than document their scurrilous coup. Where are the blankets, or invoices for the blankets? With only songs about the blankets, how is anyone to confirm their provenance? It's hearsay, the defenders say, bitter, vindictive slander to implicate the US Army for the 1837 small pox epidemic, just because the Red Man's comprehension could not attribute another cause. Although the Indian accounts aren't so pointed. They tell of an Indian chief who stole the blankets from the white soldiers, unwittingly bringing the outbreak back to his camp. Now I'll not assert that US Army blankets have always had a "U.S." stenciled on them, nor even that they were army-colored, as khaki wasn't on the uniform palette until the turn of the century. But governments have always needed to distinguish government property, to discourage their agents from divesting of their standard issue for personal gain. I will contend that it is only from the perspective of our contemporary culture of abundance, that we presume a blanket is nondescript without a trademark. In our overloaded consumer economy, it is not unreasonable to believe that an item without its receipt cannot be assumed to have come from a particular store. Indeed we need designer logos to differentiate products when we cannot assess the quality for ourselves. Today, even thread-counters are at pains to tell an Eddie Bauer from a CJ Crew by touch. But not so in the Wild West. The carpet-bagger mercantile purveyors of the West may have ushered in mass-produced dry goods, but I hardly think varieties were indistinguishable. Wanna bet there was quite a difference between blankets woven by Indians, blankets bartered from trading posts, and standard army issue?

Petty bureaucrat resents being called… The Holocaust denials of Larry DeWitt

In the face of Ward Churchill's vindication in a Colorado court, and now hearing support for him by fellow academics, Wingnut Holocaust Deniers are rallying behind whichever colleague will grab their dunce baton. The latest denier is academic aspirant, Social Security Administration archivist Larry DeWitt, who's been nursing a masters from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County campus. His master's thesis was about little known SSA efforts to mitigate The Wartime Internments & Other "Restrictive Governmental Actions." Example: his caption under a photograph of quarters at the Manzanar relocation camp reads: "Figure 43: While these internees do indeed have a bare lightbulb overhead, their living conditions are not as primitive as the rhetoric of some historians may imply." DeWitt has been an Agency Historian for the SSA since 1995, in which capacity he cobbled a history of the department, with a view it appears, to lay a groundwork for its privatization. You can read more about DeWitt at larrydewitt.net, a website "created as part of coursework in the graduate program of the History Department at the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC)." But he calls it: A Miscellany of History, Philosophy and Public Policy: A portal to four websites containing the work of historian and public policy scholar Larry DeWitt. Most recently, DeWitt assumes to be an authority on scholarship, opining on the History News Network website: Ward Churchill: He’s Baaack! Here's his opening line: "Well, that embarrassment for the liberal academy—Ward Churchill—is back in the news again." A recent article for Coloquio: Revista Cultural was about Iraq: "Doing the right thing the wrong way." Are DeWitt's writing unremarkable? Yes, but for a federal agency that has proven to be vulnerable to partisan attack, I think DeWitt's positions are ominously charged. Here are some more articles: "Howard Zinn: The Historian as Don Quixote," HNN, 01/26/09 "The Future Social Security Debate," Independent Voice , April/May 2008 "How Historians Can Help Frame the Next Social Security Debate," HNN, 10/22/07 "It is Time to Impose Peace on the Middle East," August 2006 "Should Historians Try to Rank President Bush's Presidency?" HNN, 5/22/06 "A Progressive Argument for Overturning Roe," October 2005 "It's Not the Cows Who are Mad," January 2004

Ward Churchill is not guilty of academic misconduct

Literary theorist and legal scholar, Stanley Fish, weighs in on the report of the "committee of faculty peers" that found Ward Churchill guilty of academic misconduct.   "The verdict did not surprise me because I had read the committee’s report and found it less an indictment of Churchill than an example of a perfectly ordinary squabble about research methods and the handling of evidence." "The accusations that fill its pages are the kind scholars regularly hurl at their polemical opponents. It’s part of the game. But in most cases, after you’ve trashed the guy’s work in a book or a review, you don’t get to fire him. Which is good, because if the standards for dismissal adopted by the Churchill committee were generally in force, hardly any of us professors would have jobs." In the New York Times column, Fish concludes his Churchill-exonerating analysis by claiming that he doesn't question the integrity of the committee leading the witch hunt, excusing their dishonesty with "they just got caught up in a circus that should have never come to town." Apparently Stanley Fish didn't see any of the lying douchenozzles on the stand, or read their vomit-inducing 125-page report trashing Ward Churchill's 30-year stint as polemicist laureate. Still, I appreciate Mr. Fish setting the record straight: Ward Churchill is not guilty of academic misconduct. I hope David Lane, Ward's wildly fabulous attorney, is gearing up to sue the stuffing out of the next bastard who publicly claims he is.

Churchill juror Bethany Newill explains

A few interesting things about the Ward Churchill jury came to light today (a sigh of relief from Pirate Ballerina!). The jury thought -- right up until the judge gave them their instructions -- they were to determine whether Ward Churchill was guilty of academic misconduct. When they realized they needed only to decide only whether the 9/11 essay was a substantial motivating factor in his dismissal, they agreed very quickly that it was. Although apparently the jury took their deliberations seriously, they didn't want to have anything to do with the damages portion of the process. They hoped the judge would do the job for them but when they found out that wasn't permitted, they gave it a half-hearted shot. This from Westword's interview with juror Bethany Newill: Once Judge Larry Naves reiterated that the jury had to tackle this task, Newill confirms that "the majority of us were in favor of giving him money," but they didn't know how much to award. "We were given a four-page set of rules to determine the amount, and there was also an option that we didn't have to do it. And one of the rules said there needed to be a preponderance of the evidence to show the financial effect it had on Ward Churchill. And there was no real dollar amount other than the loss of wages." Ultimately, the jurors followed the lead of David Lane, Churchill's attorney. "He said, 'What price can you put on a reputation?'" Newill remembers. "And we all decided that there's not a price you can put on a reputation. And even though this was protected speech, there are still consequences to your actions and your words. When Ward Churchill wrote that essay, he had to think that people would be affected by that, negatively or positively, and that he would need to reap the consequences on his reputation." Still, she emphasizes that "it wasn't a slap in his face or anything like that when we didn't give him any money. It's just that David Lane kept saying this wasn't about the money, and in the end, we took his word for that." No doubt, a jury of peers! Just not Ward Churchill's peers!

Still open season on Witch Churchill

DENVER- Ward Churchill's saga is bigger than the persecution of a scholar who defies the master narrative, bigger than Native American contentions over how their victor writes its history, bigger than America's First Amendment Freedom of Speech, it's WHAT HE SAID. We can fantasize that the American psyche is sophisticated enough to care about what is written of its history. I'm not sure Americans care what's in their rear view mirror as long as the Drive Thru is still open. But put a swastika on our Red White and Blue... The story today is a professor exonerated, accusers rebuked, and American civil liberties protected. It's even fashionable to say you agree with what Churchill wrote in his 9/11 essay, like it was history. You can say you agree, but try to say it.

Ward Churchill prevails over Western Civ

DENVER- The jury ruled for Ward Churchill today, that he was wrongfully terminated, on the basis of his 9/11 essay, and that CU had no other justification to fire him. It remains for the judge to order the university to reinstate the professor, with back pay, and pay Attorney David Lane's legal fees. In other words, the accusations made against Churchill have been repudiated, and the regents showed themselves to be perjurers. It was my impression the ex-Rocky Mountain News columnists left the courtroom with their tongues between their wobbly knees. This is court room 6, where the trial stretched for three and a half weeks. We're looking over the plaintiff's desk, to the right is the podium. That's Ward Churchill's coat draped on his chair. I would expect that Churchill is owed an apology from the several publications which perpetuated the untruths about his scholarship. Beside the RMN, there's Westword, the Denver Post, the Boulder Daily Camera, etc, etc, basically everyone who's peddled the plagiarism falsehoods, thinking them substantiated by the CU committee. Now the falsehoods are disproved are adjudicated. Now it will be libel, to repeat those untruths about Churchill.

Mimi Wesson has um big penis envy

DENVER- And it's a strange lot of penises she covets: there's Bob Guccione, OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton and... Ward Churchill. In a private email in the midst of the CU firestorm over Churchill's 9/11 essay, Wesson compared the "thoroughly unpleasant" Churchill to a pornographer, wife-batterer-killer, pedophile and cheat --as attorney David Lane reminded us in his closing arguments today. But it wasn't the email that tipped me off, nor her fiction-writer persona promotional photo on the motorcycle. It was something which Marianne "My friends call me Mimi" did on her first day of testimony, early in the trial. When she left the witness stand, Wesson did not return to her seat, nor to the chairs located by the defense table for CU-aligned witnesses. During her break, Churchill-slayer Mimi Wesson chose the chair directly behind Ward Churchill. Did anyone else remark on this? Even though Wesson stubbornly tried to project an adult impartiality about the case, as would befit the chairperson of a committee deciding another faculty member's fate, off the stand Wesson couldn't resist the urge which it appears drove her to solicit the committee chair position in the first place: to face "male celebrity wrongdoers" and take them down. In the courtroom Wesson denied agreeing to the committee appointment only with the proviso that she be in charge, but her earlier videotaped deposition recorded otherwise. By her own account, Wesson had asked to be chairperson of the board selected to investigate Churchill. When Wesson blamed a possible stenographer's error for the inconsistency, Attorney Lane pointed out that the courtroom had just heard her deposition with its own ears. As a pup fiction writer, and a frequent law commentator on mainstream news programs, it's clear Wesson welcomes the public eye. During the "All Churchill, all the time" mayhem, maybe she saw an opportunity to pretend to have incited the Churchill lynch mob. I hope Wesson will be remembered for her testimony in this trial, in which the law professor demonstrated she was crafty enough to avoid admitting her prejudice, but couldn't distance herself from the incriminating grandstanding she'd already done. The "Wesson Committee" was shown in this trial to have been a hatchet team of academic hacks. Whose foray into Native America Ethnic Studies, purportedly to debunk Ward Churchill's scolarship, resembled a visit of Ugly Americans to an Indian reservation. With Mimi the Emasculator wanting both to drive and ride shotgun.

Churchill v Churchill

Closing arguments will be heard this morning in the Ward Churchill trial and then the case goes to the (very young and earnest) jury. Winston Churchill said "history is written by the victors" which has been a central thesis in much of Ward Churchill's work. It's scrumptiously ironic that when Ward Churchill wins his case against CU, he'll become a contributor to the "Master Narrative" he so despises. I'm guessing his chapter will be full of tales of brave Indiginists and murdering technocrats, white male regents and the soulless women who love them. Academia will be recast as the valiant protector of the ruling elite and the mighty slayer of free thought and open debate. The jury of young, multiracial unsophisticates will be consecrated as puissant defenders of justice. A few vindictive ex-wives and some illicit boys' room puffing may be tossed in to add color. When Ward Churchill prevails against the esteemed institution that called into question his academic integrity, his reputation as a scholar and a brilliant polemicist will be restored. More importantly, the master narrative will no longer be inscrutable. The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is. -- W. Churchill

Churchill v CU Trial wraps up today

DENVER- Can it be any easier to be a witness to history? Come to the Denver Courthouse this morning before 9 AM. It's the large columned building opposite the state capitol. Ascend the imposing steps which rise directly from Civic Center Park. Passing the shortest security line, compared to the four ground floor entrances, take a right and go all the way down the hall. Court Room 6 is where Ward Churchill's case against the University of Colorado will be put in the jury's hands today. Info about the where and how to attend the trial has been sparse, tailored to an audience familiar with Denver court battles perhaps, but do not be deterred. From the address advertised, "1437 Bannock Street," you could envision any old judicial facility, but this is THE judicial facility, at Denver's center, and for the last three weeks, the TV News vans give it away. There is no court employee to answer questions outside. Go in any entrance and from there get to the second floor, and proceed to the NW end. There you'll see media reporters huddled into a vending machine cranny converted for this occasion into a video feed center. Around the corner is room six. If court is already in session, there will be nary a peep outside, but don't hesitate to quietly open the door and circumnavigate the pews. If you still have a hat on, an officer seated directly right of the door will grab you as you enter and let you know to take it off. The first row is reserved for the media, who spill over into the second row to have access to the power strip. More sit in folding chairs in the rear corners of the room, for the same reason. Laptops abound, and there's a constant murmur of keyboards clicking. You won't notice a lull until statements reveal something significant and the keyboardists resume in unison. Breaks are at 10:30 AM and 3:00 PM or so, with an hour and a half for lunch at noon. Leave a coat to mark your seat, or lose it to whoever returns first. The audience seated in the westward pews have a better view of the witness stand, as from elsewhere you are impeded by the lawyers or their laptops on the podium. The audience is a largely friendly collection. Most everyone looks like a Churchill supporter, except for the CU representatives who stick to the last SW pew, and the occasional note-taker in the middle and SE rear. The owners of Left Hand Books in Boulder have been there almost everyday, as have Professor Churchill's family and a number of friends. You can't miss it. Colfax and Civic Center Park.

Lynne Stewart visits Churchill Trial

DENVER- For local media wonks who may have lost sight of the national significance of the Churchill v CU trial, the Denver courtroom was visited last week by radical luminary Lynne Stewart, who traveled from New York in a show of solidarity with Churchill's fight against a systemic quashing of dissent now reaching into US academia. Lynne and her husband Ralph Poynter scheduled their Denver visit to coincide with Professor Churchill's testimony and the anticipated end of the 3-week trial. But arriving Wednesday and leaving Friday, they missed both. We met the couple on Thursday, the day's session which was cut short by the closings due to severe weather. As the lawyer to accused terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, Stewart was convicted in 2005 of conspiracy and giving material aid to a terrorist. She was sentenced to 28 months in prison, but is free on bail while awaiting the outcome of an appeal. Denver reporters missed Stewart's visit in their seemingly predisposition to ignore the trial's greater ramifications, except for the lip service they pay to the Right Winged media's national obsession with Ward Churchill and their idea of blasphemy. No matter how inflammatory Professor Churchill's essay, the actions taken by CU to appease Colorado politicians, represent nothing less than the gagging of dissent. And in a university, where you'd hope all the voices would be dissenting. What good are fascist professors outside of PE and Machine shop? Is school any place for a humanities faculty member who is bigoted or conservative? Personally, I resent idiocy over the airwaves, but in the schools it is just unforgivable. The case has generated headlines across the country and spurred fiery debates about academic freedom versus academic integrity. This is how the Boulder Daily Camera summarizes the Churchill case. While they admit to the trial's notoriety, they frame the argument just as Churchill's censors would approve. A false choice between freedom and integrity. It's not freedom versus integrity. It's freedom and integrity versus the subjugation of both. While Professor Churchill and allies stand for freedom of speech, and integrity of character, the college is being shown, in league with the media, to represent neither.

Ex RMN columnists stuck to their guns

DENVER- Considering the villainous role the Rocky Mountain News played in the vilification of Ward Churchill, their insinuations having been thoroughly discredited in this trial, you'd think the RMN columnists now writing for the Denver Post would be self-conscious about taking the same mocking stance. But they are not. Attorney David Lane chats with them most amicably, but still they file the typical anti-academic hit pieces. Columnist Vincent Carroll summarized Churchill's recent testimony as: Ward's world of brazen claims. In an earlier piece, Carroll recaps Churchill's alleged misconduct, but where an objective reporter would say "alleged," Carroll writes "gross." Don't think the RMN vets aren't well aware that a vindication for Churchill means a repudiation of their libel. Mike Littwin is no better. For him, yawns in the audience are not a sign of defense attorney Patrick O'Rourke's pedestrian presentation, but of the discussion's irrelevance. Of Native American history in dispute, of genocide still denied by CU in this example, Littwin concludes: the World has moved beyond Churchill.

Churchill and his curiously vile detractors

DENVER- There's an interesting sideshow at the Churchill v CU case having to do with a cadre of unsavory Ward Churchill online critics. What they are writing is hardly interesting but their unceasing doggedness, repeating only ad hominem attacks, leads one to wonder who they are and what horse do they have, in not only this race, but in Churchill's ongoing activism. These are the same voices which heckled the DNC organizers, AIM, and the contra-Columbus actions. It's a little circle of shit-knitters, who cross-link or repost each other's comments from Blogspot blogs Drunkablog, Slapstick Politics, People's Press Collective, and riding point on the Churchill Trial, Pirate Ballerina. These are Little Green Football variety ditto-heads, and I hardly mean to draw attention to them, but their relentless character assassination seems to wag the local media dogs, and one might as well look into that. Meaning, more in a bit. Churchill amused the courtroom audience by illustrating his sarcastic use of quotation marks, as one might refer to the Rocky Mountain News as a "newspaper." It's not enough to conclude Professor Churchill has enemies. There are Native American casino owners who might be threatened by Churchill's revisiting of the past, there are rivals for Churchill's influence in the American Indian Movement. Obviously there are historians eager to retread what they've invested in the Master Narrative. Curiously, there are Zionists who are vehemently opposed to the discussion Churchill wants to provoke. And I suppose there are stupid white males who will stand for no diminishment of God Blessed America. These bloggers are the latter "Right Wing" variety obviously, and bring nothing to the table but personal attacks. But what sustains them, tasked as they appear to be, to hound Ward Churchill on a daily basis, year after year? There are players both on the national scene, and locally, who I consider complete bastards who merit every rebuke possible, but that doesn't mean I dedicate my every utterance when they so much as visit the bathroom.

Churchill lends trial his sonorous levity

DENVER- Court Room 6 is packed once again as Ward Churchill takes the stand to detail his wrongful dismissal by CU. His testimony began yesterday afternoon, and Attorney David Lane is outlining the basis for damages. Churchill isn't asking for money. Says he, "I want my job." Churchill testified that his publishing output is 5% of his usual, only two or three articles in journals, and four books under contract but still awaiting delivery. But Churchill is quick to reassure the room that the works are forthcoming, and he is upbeat, despite CU committee members having testified, sadly but triumphantly, of having reduced Churchill's reputation, thirty years and twenty books, to a pitcher of warm spit. Lane asked Churchill: "How does this make you feel?" "Angry" is Churchill's reply. "But anger is no new feeling for me." Cross-examination has begun, Attorney Patrick O'Rourke is inadvertently treating the jury to the very character assassination upon which Churchill has been making his case. O'Rourke's first question pretended to inform the jury that he and Churchill had become familiar over the course of these many legal actions, and thus direct questions would not be improper or disrespectful. But he loaded his question thus: "I'm going to ask direct questions, will you be willing to give me direct answers?" O'Rourke used a second question purportedly to frame his his line of questions. "Professor Churchill, is it fair to say that you've been accused of many things, of not being a real Indian, for example, and after your 911 essay, of a half million things it seems like, would that be fair to say?" "Uh, yes. Although probably not a half million..." "Well, I'm not going to ask you about any of those things, I'm going to stick to just the allegations made by the committee." Later O'Rourke questioned why a previous witness, Russel Means, had referred to his colleague as Doctor Churchill. "You don't have a PhD, do you?" He asked Churchill. "You only have a Masters, isn't that correct?" Churchill explained that he had been given an honorary doctorate, to which O'Rourke replied, "So it's just an honorary doctorate?" Asked Churchill: "Do you mean to dishonor it?"

Driving Miss McIntosh

DENVER- At first the testimony from a CU committee member who voted to dismiss Ward Churchill seemed utterly damning. Dr. Marjorie McIntosh, retired Distinguished Professor of history, gave her testimony by video because she would be lecturing in England at the time of the Churchill v CU trial. She came across like a wise elder, her scolding kind and maternal. She had me convinced that Ward should be sent to his room, but for an indelible pallor that began to infect her testimony as the retired professor grew tired under scrutiny. And like the history of 14th Century England which was her specialization, it became inescapably evident that Marjorie McIntosh was very, very white. At face value, Dr. McIntosh's quiet authoritative demeanor seemed beyond reproach, expressing as she did her support for Ward Churchill’s right to speak. McIntosh described how her father was a dean at U of M who reputedly stood up to Senator McCarthy. She explained her initial reluctance to be party to a Right Wing attempt to “get” Professor Churchill. At first Ms. McIntosh seemed as earnest as your own grandmother, if your grandmother was also a well spoken distinguished academic. But the cracks in Ms. McIntosh’s maternal concern showed themselves even before the plaintiff’s cross-examination. When Professor McIntosh described herself as “fair and impartial,” it was in contrast, she offered, to Professor Churchill for example, who she understands may not be impartial or neutral. Partiality Under cross-examination McIntosh went further. To paraphrase: “Professor Curchill is not a trained historian, he has an MA, he is a scholar who writes on historical subjects. He presents himself as a specialist, but he does not have that training.” By contrast we are meant to infer, McIntosh is a Distinguished Professor, rewarded for having had a “national impact” on scholarship, and having produced work which has “directed” consequential research. Questioned about the significance of tenure, McIntosh described the rigorous qualifications which she met. But with a smile she would not vouch for a uniformity of high standards at CU, since, obviously… She held her tongue as if too polite to say it: Ward Churchill was a glaring example of the opposite. A second indication of Dr. McIntosh’s personal bias might be suggested by how she characterized committee chairwoman Mimi Wesson’s perceived personal agenda: Did she detect any bias on the committee, in particular with Wesson? McIntosh saw no evidence of bias, and she thought Wesson treated Professor Churchill with great respect, both in his presence and after. McIntosh was impressed by Wesson’s professionalism. Another of McIntosh's responses hints at a further insincerity. She and her SCRUM colleagues were tasked with investigating one allegation each made against Churchill. McIntosh was “foot soldier” for the Madan Indian Ft Clark episode. Discrepancies in Churchill's account had been brought to the university's attention by Arizona professor Lavall, a rival of Churchill's in the American Indian Movement. McIntosh was asked whether she knew that Lavall's allegations had been raised six years before being addressed by her committee. Perhaps to dodge the accusation

Media coverage of Denver Churchill Trial

DENVER- NMT to the rescue. So far we've noticed a strange media dyslexia about the Churchill vs CU trial. When we've attended, the proceedings look like a rout for truth and the historical record. When we haven't made it to Denver and are left to rely on the news coverage, by all accounts Churchill is in trouble. Are the reporters freakin' blind? While I've been content to revel in the excitement of clackering laptop keyboards all about me in the courtroom, I hadn't snooped over anyone's shoulder, until this week. On Monday, the Boulder Daily Camera front row regular, after he'd posted his story before the first morning break, busied himself with emails, then watched a video with the Denver Post correspondent perched over his shoulder. Later another media log lump monopolized the last power outlet to play solitaire. I'm guessing the DU law student project Race to the Bottom blogger is taking the most notes, competing with a would-be law student, not just for proficiency, but also in who takes the most drearily technical view of the proceedings. I've yet been able to assess the coverage by the weekly visitor from the Silver and Gold Record, CU's faculty publication. Check out the Wednesday account, and three previous: March 16, 14, 12. Ward Churchill is expected to take the stand today, so I've come up to lend insight to the academic goings on. I'm somewhat alarmed at the angle the media is taking. Ward Churchill is not only the leading authority on Native American history, he's among only a few outspoken academic voices. More spirited than Zinn, or Chomsky, and as result, perhaps more controversial. But I challenge anyone to name many contemporaries who match more luminary. Next I will provide color commentary for the lesser luminaries who are dogging Churchill and his desecration of idealized Americana.

Top