ACTA's Must-Reads
« Life, liberty, and the pursuit of ignorance | Main | Time, place, and manner »
Churchill decompensates
Although University of Colorado - Boulder administrators rightly ruled that ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill's inflammatory comments about 9/11 were protected speech, the jury is still out about whether Churchill will be dismissed for academic fraud. As a special UC committee spends the summer investigating charges that Churchill has been a serial plagiarist, a falsifier of historical facts, and a liar about his own ethnic background, Churchill is doing absolutely nothing to help his own case.
One might think Churchill would find it fruitful to spend some time carefully and scrupulously refuting the charges against him (a point-by-point refutation of the Rocky Mountain News' magisterial four-part series documenting the validity of those charges, which has now become a part of the formal UD investigation, would be a place to start). Failing that, one might at least expect that the embattled Churchill would make a special effort to behave professionally during a period when his career is in jeopardy. But Churchill is doing just the opposite. He is making headlines now for his comments praising "fragging" (which occurs when soldiers kill officers), and is thus engaging in more injudicious, if ultimately protected, speech (the governor of Colorado, Bill Owens, is so sick of Churchill at this point that he is referring to him as "Weasel Churchill").
More to the point, Churchill is openly mocking UC's investigation of him--he has filed a complaint against himself with the university, accusing himself of failing to acknowledge his graduate research assistants' help. Churchill has never had a research assistant, but in a letter to UC administrators last week, he observed that this fact "should by no means deter you." A university spokeswoman has acknowledged receipt of the complaint, and has informed the press that the university is "taking it under advisement."
Churchill says that if the university tries to fire him, he will sue.
For more general reflections on academe's ethical lacunae, see Candace de Russy and Mitchell Langbert's piece in today's edition of InsideHigherEd.com.
Posted by acta online at July 5, 2005 09:23 AM
Comments
Hamilton College is currently having its first election of alumni trustees in more than 30 years.
Typically, the alumni trustees are nominated by the Alumni Council and, absent any nominees acting by petition, duly appointed. This year four alumni have submitted petitions for nomination as alumni trustee.
A series of events, some nationally known, some less so, have damaged the reputation of the school. These include but are not limited to the matters of Eugene Tobin's plagiarism, resignation, severance package, and the subsequent endowment of a chair in his name; Susan Rosenberg; and Ward Churchill.
A group of concerned alumni formed Hamilton College Alumni for Governance Reform (HCAGR) to review various matters of Hamilton College and offer suggestions and candidates to reform & improve governance of the College. Our objective is to restore Hamilton�s reputation and credibility as one of the premier liberal arts institutions in the world.
We currently are sponsoring three candidates by petition for alumni trustee.
We created a web site, www.hcagr.modblog.com, early this year to serve as a forum all views on Hamilton; submitted a position paper dated Feb. 17, 2005, that includes specific recommendations regarding governance and policy to the President and trustees of Hamilton College; and have gathered what we believe to be a significant following among like minded alumni.
We invite you, as a party interested in educational matters and freedom of speech, to comment on the rules regarding the conduct of the election.
Evidently, Hamilton feels a compelling need to limit what candidates can say and their manner of communication. Freedom of speech, it seems, only goes so far when it comes to elections run by Hamilton and its Alumni Council:
For example, candidates for Alumni Trustee "may not include any contact information or references to specific hard copy or online resource material..." in their statements of candidacy which are limited to "100 words in length" and will be mailed to all alumni. Further, "Candidates and their supporters are urged not to use email for campaign purposes" (source: Hamilton College Alumni Association, 2005 Alumni Trustee Election Procedures, June 17, 2005).
These specific prohibitions on the content of the statements of candidacy are tailored to prohibit the mention of HCAGR�s website, the articles and views thereon, and its position paper of Feb. 17, 2005. The 100 word limitation is clearly designed to preclude any substantive discussion of issues, particularly in light of the other limitations.
See for yourself. The rules of the election are posted on
www.hcagr.modblog.com
or at
http://my.hamilton.edu/alumni/AlumniTrusteeElectionProcedures.pdf.
Hamilton College explicitly and directly prohibits the mention of our website or any specific hard copy material or online resource to its alumni by its own alumni-candidates in their statements of candidacy. We find it rather odd for an institution that professes to believe in free speech to muzzle its own alumni in the course of an election.
Posted by: hb at July 13, 2005 04:26 PM