ACTA's Must-Reads
« A "Faux Response" from Dartmouth | Main | Nonsense in New Hampshire »
Outcomes and outcries
The news that the University of Colorado has moved to fire Ward Churchill--and that Churchill has fired back by announcing his intent to sue--is hardly news. This was an expected outcome, created over the long course of more than a year of investigative work on Colorado's part and accusatory pronouncements on the part of Churchill. And it is a good, if expensive outcome, as far as it goes (so far, Churchill estimates, CU has spent over $250,000 of taxpayer money trying to fire him).
But it is not the only, or even the most important, outcome of the Churchill case. What should not be lost in the furious, mediagenic confrontation that will now ensue as Churchill fights the decision to fire him, is the report of Colorado's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. Specifically, what should not be forgotten is how much attention that report paid to the broader implications of the Churchill case, how concerned it was with how the loosely-knit structure of the academic system enables people like Churchill to thrive, and how much importance it placed on ensuring that individual faculty members are abiding by the conventions of scholarly integrity. As ACTA has already noted, these concerns and recommendations are the true meat of the report.
In addition to recommending serious penalties for Churchill himself, the report stresses the importance of using established institutional procedures, particularly those surrounding hiring, promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review, to make sure that faculty scholarship meets professional standards. The report notes that this is a daunting and difficult task, but also notes that it is an essential aspect of the peer evaluation that underwrites academic self-governance ("If there is hope of identifying misconduct sans a complaint, it lies in the unit level review conducted by peers of the individual. To be successful at this level, the reviews must be serious rather than cursory, must involve individuals with as much expertise as possible in the reviewed individual's area of inquiry, and most importantly should involve a careful reading of the individual's work, rather than a simple count of articles, chapters or books"). In this respect, the report amounts to a policy statement for best administrative practices, and its recommendations for how CU ought to become more accountable for faculty integrity are also recommendations for how any self-respecting college or university in the country should proceed.
The report also recommends that efforts be made to restore the reputations of those faculty and staff whose images were tarnished by their association with Churchill. This is an important point, and one closely tied to its other recommendations: An excellent way for any academic department or discipline to estabablish--or re-establish--its reputation is to show itself to be actively invested in maintaining its own scholarly and pedagogical integrity. This means not giving ideologues and frauds and plagiarists a free pass. In tolerating--and even elevating--Churchill, CU fell short on this one. But CU is not alone; the time-consuming, labor intensive process of assessing the integrity of scholarly work is widely short-changed in academe today, and as long as this is the case, what separates many cavalierly managed departments from CU's department of ethnic studies is luck alone.
ACTA has been widely criticized for asking how many Ward Churchills are out there. The question has offended academics who would distance themselves from Churchill by treating him as an isolated instance of a bad seed abusing an excellent system. But such defensiveness is as short-sighted as it is beside the point: The hard truth here is that an academe that does not regulate itself effectively is no better than its most corrupt members.
Posted by acta online at June 28, 2006 05:16 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/178
Comments
GOOD RIDDANCE, WARD-O
It is one thing, a caring acquaintance, offering helpful critiques.
It is quite another -- a bitter, hate-filled philippic, spewing his or her vicious bile on those who pay his or her salary.
Want to spit on America? Fine -- pay for it, yourself, big shot. That's "academic freedom" -- moi free from paying your bills.
We already have overt suicidal psychopaths trying to kill, everyday Americans. We don't need faux-radicals, trying to kill us from within.
It's not like we are talking about an Einstein, or Freud, or someone authentically significant. Truth be told, 99.9% of us are eminently replaceable -- including Ward Churchill, Grover Furr, Michael Berube, Noam Chomsky, Timothy Shortell, Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, et al.
Posted by: Bart J. at June 28, 2006 03:54 PM
NOT WARD'S FAULT
It's our fault. How dare we judge someone who says he's suffered so much in life.
* A combat veteran whose combat records can't be located.
* An American Indian forced to live in white middle-class America, as a child.
* An adjunct with a master's in art forced to become tenured faculty in a field he does not have a PhD in.
* A citizen who has provided the Colorado legal system with so much costly, if unsuccessful, litigation.
Shame on us. It is not his fault. It is our fault. We have to accept people like him, as they are.
How dare we try to force him to live to our standards. Let this fine eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus) fly free to do his thing.
We have no right to stop him. In fact -- CU and GWB should be required to pay him damages -- thanks be to the David Lanes of the world!
Posted by: Dane Thoss at July 1, 2006 07:16 AM
Careful reading of candidates writings in decisions on tenure, promotion, post-tenure review? A tall order. We routinely have numerous outside letters from experts for tenure and promotion decisions. Perhaps that constitutes a "careful reading", though only indirect on the part of the departmental members closest to the decision. Just reading the letters is a fair task. Going for outside letters for post-tenure review? A lot of time and effort involved for everyone concerned. I doubt that it's worth it (I doubt whether existing post-tenure review is worth it, frankly.)
Best advice: be careful to whom you award tenure.
Posted by: Michael Kellman at July 1, 2006 12:22 PM