Talk:Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Withheld teaching recognition award 1.1 Digression on edit comments and WP:PA 1.2 Where to put award 1.3 MONGO's solution 1.4 More background on award 2 Ridiculously short 3 Article name 4 List of tenants not relevant?

[edit] Withheld teaching recognition award

This award was witheld because of the investigation into allegations of misconduct (see Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations)). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has included it here, inappropriately, to push a point of view (which he admits to) that the award was witheld as a means of political intimidation. I moved the discussion to the misconduct page section on the university investigation, but Lulu has reverted my changes and moved it back here. Despite the fact that Churchill makes the claim that this is part of a "witchhunt" against him because of the controvery surrounding the essay (which actually, I'm not sure he does say the "witchhunt" concerns the essay), the university has pointedly stated that the investigation concerns only the allegations of misconduct, and does not include the controversy surrounding the 9/11 essay. Witholding the award based on questions of academic misconduct is consistent with both the focus of the investigation and with the alumni association's statements on the matter. Including the discussion of the withheld teaching award here in order to infer that the reason has more to do with suppression of Churchill's first amendment rights than with legitimate concerns regarding his academic standing is not WP:NPOV, but rather an attempt to push a speculative point of view.

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I am posting this comment here to allow discussion on the issue before reimplementing the edits which Lulu has reverted. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I provided a quote from Churchill indicating that he believes the withholding is part fo the politically motivated "witchhunt". The quote was from the same newspaper article that we had cited all along, FWIW. I'll look around for an additional comment to the same effect. Of course, that same source also does not claim that the award was withheld because of the allegations of misconduct... that's just Doug Bell's reaching to construe the actual story in a manner he wishes to push. Obviously, the AA is not party to the investigation, so that connection is pretty thin.

This is anecdotal, so it's not something I can cite in the article itself. But as a CU alumn, I received a fund raising call from the Alumni Association. Of course, it was just a kid—presumably a CU student—I spoke with. I told him I would not donate any money because of the political motivation of the AA's actions in relation to Churchill's teaching award (that was an exaggeration by me, I admit... I wouldn't have donated anyway). The kid said that he had heard the same comment from a lot of alumni he had called. Now obviously I know that I can't cite "phone conversation reported by David Mertz" as a source... but it made it pretty clear to me that I was not the only person who at least perceived the award issue as being part of a political intimidation effort. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what the referenced article says:

Officials say they are holding back the Teaching Recognition Award pending the outcome of a CU investigation into the ethnic studies professor.
...
A research-misconduct committee is looking into allegations that Churchill misrepresented prior research, plagiarized work and fabricated an American Indian identity to gain a scholarly audience. Churchill has disputed all charges in a lengthy report to the committee.
"We're giving that committee time to complete its study," said Clark Oldroyd, vice president of the Alumni Association. "It just seems like the prudent thing to do." [1]

So I object to and resent the attempt by Lulu to characterize my statement "this award was witheld because of the investigation into allegations of misconduct" as "reaching to construe the actual story in a manner he wishes to push." Lulu is the one who is attempting to construe the actual story in the manner he wishes to push. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Right there in black and white, you still cannot find the word "because". I know you really, really, really wish it said that... but it doesn't. Of course, the more germane quote from the same article is:

Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman told the campus Silver & Gold Record that the group is holding back the award until Churchill's "name has been cleared" by the committee. He compared it to withholding a student's grade on a final exam "if there were questions about the student's effort.",

But that's even less helpful to your reinterpretation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You're asserting that I am reinterpreting because I used the word "because"? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I suspect that most people that would read the article and then read my statement would not see any attempt to "reinterpret" or "recharacterize" the article.

I don't have any desire for the referenced article to say anything, my only point in engaging in these discussions is to try to balance these articles that you have spent so long slowly cultivating to your point of view. I don't desire to include anything other than the facts, whatever they may be. But I won't sit still for either you continuing to employ the tactic of trying to disparage my motives instead of debating in good faith as I've done, and neither will I just go away so that you can continue your attempts to exercise complete control over these articles. I don't think either of these is good for Wikipedia, and I'm willing to "waste" the time in debating with you, despite your repeated bad faith arguments. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digression on edit comments and WP:PA

Btw. What's the story, Doug, with every single many edit summaries you make insulting me? (some at the NA project, and elsewhere). Ah well... I guess it might help you get it out of your system. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

With your comment "with every single edit summary you make insulting me," again you are making unsupported claims in an attempt to disparage my motivations and comments. Here is a list of every edit summary comment I've made in relation to the recent Churchill article discussions. I'll let the comments speak for themselves in refuting your allegation. Please highlight all the insulting comments I've made for all to see. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but changing from "every single" to "many" just won't do. Please highlight all of the insulting comments I've made. I've added the two summary comments I made at the NA project, please highlight the insulting comments. I will gladly include any summary comments on the page from the last month that you would like to highlight as examples of my insulting you in my summary comments. Next I will collect all of the disparaging comments you have made regarding my good faith efforts at discussion and editing. I simply am not going to let you get by anymore with attacking my motives and character through innuendo. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to put award

That said, I'm perfectly happy to have the award issue mentioned in the sibling as well. I think it is minimally germane to that other article as well, even though less so than to this sibling. A few words of overlap are no big thing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in and not picking sides. The way I see it is that Churchill has only not been presented the award because of the ongoing "investigation". I assume that if the allegations of him plagerizing and misrepresenting his Native American heritage to gain a teaching position are found to be false, then the award will be presented. He hasn't been found "guilty" yet I take it...so the award is his per se, but not if they find him guilty of these incidents I suppose. What have I missed. I don't see that he won't be presented the award, only that he will not get it if is found not innocent? Trying not to draw at straws, so if I am incorrect in this assumption, let me know.--MONGO 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Churchill has recently been found guilty of serious misconduct and the board could not come to a unanimous conclusion as to whether he should be fired or merely suspended without pay for 5 years. This is not a surprise for anybody following the story who has heard of the several occasions where he was caught out violating academic norms. Apparently the report has found other occasions not previously discussed in public. It's pretty common for awards to be withheld/withdrawn for fraud reasons. It's likely going to happen here again. TMLutas 21:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no legal or formal basis on which to withhold the award even if he were already found guilty of all the allegations. The award is from an organization unrelated to the University ethics committee, and nothing in the rules previously published ever said anything about "given to teachers of scholarly standing" or whatever. The published basis is just "who do the students vote for?" In other words, it's purely in violation of their own previously published rules that the alumni association withheld the award from Churchill... which sure make it seem like a bit of political maneuvering rather than any kind of obvious rule. It might be that he is cleared of everything, and the AA finds a different pretense to withhold it. It might be he is found guilty of something, and they go ahead and award it (as their own rules require). Or likewise for guilty/withheld and cleared/granted. It's pure politics, and what they'll do is anyone's guess. I don't know whether any prior recipient had been involved in any kind of plagiarism investigation, but there's certainly no question that if they had (as some internal academic matter, not subject to national publicity), the AA would not give it a second thought when giving the award. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First, it is clearly, as you have acknowledged, your POV that it is political maneuvering. Further, even if there is political maneuvering, you are further speculating that it is in regard to the essay controversy and not in regard to the misconduct allegations. Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to push your unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MONGO's solution

Here is the passage before it was deleted:

In the spring of 2005, Ward Churchill won a teaching award (in the 25-75 class size category), receiving 54 votes among the 2,085 students at the University of Colorado at Boulder who voted for its annual Teaching Recognition Award. The University of Colorado Alumni Association, which sponsors the award, announced that they would withhold the award from Churchill "until Churchill's name has been cleared by the committee". According to Churchill, "What [Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman] is really saying—obviously—is that it would be really awkward for the institution to have to acknowledge the quality of my teaching in the midst of an effort to paint an exactly opposite portrait of me." Given annually for 44 years, this is the first time the award was withheld from its winner.[3], [4]

Can we change it to:

The annual Teaching Recognition Award for class sizes of 25 to 75 is voted on by students at the university and in 2005, 54 out of 2,085 students selected Churchill to be the recipient. With the ongoing investigations by the Ethics Committee, the Alumni Association responsible for presenting the award has yet to present the award to Churchill. Clark Oldroyd, The vice president of the Alumni Association stated that "We're giving that committee time to complete its study" and also stated that, "It just seems like the prudent thing to do." [5] Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman told the campus Silver & Gold Record that the group is holding back the award until Churchill's "name has been cleared" by the committee. He compared it to withholding a student's grade on a final exam "if there were questions about the student's effort." According to Churchill, "What Alumni Association President Kent Zimmerman is really saying—obviously—is that it would be really awkward for the institution to have to acknowledge the quality of my teaching in the midst of an effort to paint an exactly opposite portrait of me." Given annually for 44 years, this is the first time the award was withheld from its winner.[6],

I don't know if it makes it any clearer...I think it shows that there is an investigation that the award has been apparently withheld and finally what Churchill has to say about the matter. Is this better...or worse?--MONGO 03:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the second link appears to now be dead--MONGO 03:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The second link requires registration, I believe, but has the same article as the first (however, I think it's a bad interface that doesn't really tell you you need to be logged in first). I think browsing around Google for more background today I saw some more copies of the same article. I didn't want to use those because I think they might be copyright violation on the Daily Camera original article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The wording can be tweaked some, but so long as the argument is referenced, it isn't us saying it, we are just reporting what they think and say based on the citations. Try googling zimmermann + churchill or something like that and maybe that will work...be back later.--MONGO 05:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the wording. The new wording is a definite improvement, although I wasn't even objecting to the wording before. My objection is the POV established by including this in the McCarthyism section, when instead it should be discussed in the misconduct page section on the university investigation. Lulu freely admits to the POV he is attempting to push by including the discussion where it is now, and all I'm trying to do is remove that POV. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that I am not sure what the passage has to do with McCarthyism....I don't think from my perspective that the award is being withheld because Churchill is under fire from the far right. I think they have held off on presenting the award because of the ongoing other events...I think they would (or at least I hope they would), if the political tables were 180 degrees different...still be withholding the award. From my vantage point, Churchill's comments are extremely inflammatory, almost to the point that I wonder if he does it just to get attention rather than an actual belief in some of these things. Maybe the paragraph can go into a new section?--MONGO 07:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's as balanced as discussing it where the investigation is discussed, but it's certainly better than where it is now. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the award withholding has much at all to do with the investigation per se is contentious, unsupported by citation, and unlikely to be true as a matter of fact (I know the last doesn't really count, since we report what's verifiable, not what's true... but still). It's POV-mongering, of a minor sort, to try to put the award thing over under the misconduct allegations sibling; but the minimal version there now is fairly innocuous. However, I'm fine with promoting the section so as not to tie it as closely with the "McCarthyism" phrases. While the idea of politically motivated attacks is sort of what I would call "McCarthyite" or "a witchhunt", no one quoted uses those terms specifically in relation to the award withholding. So readers can judge whether it's an example of the same thing.

While I cannot prove it, of course, I am about 99% sure that if the political tables were "180 degrees different" the idea of withholding the award would not have even passed through the mind of Zimmerman or any AA members. But that's counterfactual, obviously it's pretty unlikely to find an real-life example that is closely matched in everything except the politics of the "controversial" figure. The closest example that comes readily to my mind is Lawrence Summers comments about the innate mental inferiority of women, as Harvard president. Those comments were controversial too, but the reprocussions and unfolding of events was quite different... in a way pretty closely tied to the difference in political direction. Of course, Summers did eventually resign as president, while retaining an academic job (which is sort of an analogy with Churchill's chairmanship). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that Summers character sure put his foot in his mouth...slap! I take it that you would contend that the leadership at CU is more conservative than some colleges?--MONGO 09:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah... being at CU is a big part of the context. If Churchill taught at my local University of Massachusetts, Amherst or Hampshire College, I'm sure events would have unfolded very differently. Fox News might have reported his essay, but either school would have been 100% behind Churchill during the whole process (certainly no plagiarism investigation, no award shennanigans, no call for ouster, etc). But then, there's also no local equivalent of the Rocky Mountain News to "keep the fires stoked". For that matter, if Summers had engaged in his provocative misogyny (and attacks on African American studies/professors) as president of Hampshire College, I think he'd be ousted in a minute (Harvard isn't particularly liberal, but it's not conservative either; Hampshire is a distinctly liberal school). But CU in particular has been subject to some conservative pressure and tendencies. The Colorado governor has been active in the "de-liberalization of colleges" movement, and the CU Regents have mostly been created in that mold. CU isn't the only school where the "Churchill Affair" could have occurred, but it's one of relatively few (it also could not have occurred at right-wing Pepperdine University, or ultra-right Bob Jones University, both because Churchill never would have gotten near the faculty in the first place, and because neither is "good" enough school to matter for the anti-liberalization effort). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with any culpability on Churchill's part. The guy seems like a pretty up-front, ethical guy. Those liberal schools aren't all that worried about stuff like plagiarism and fraud. Gimme a break. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More background on award

Some other possible links to use (just making notes for now):

• http://newmedia.colorado.edu/silverandgold/messages/4533.html
• According to Idianz.com, "Students at the University of Colorado have overwhelmingly chosen Ward Churchill as their favorite professor but he won't be given the award because he is too controversial."[7]
• http://listserv.utk.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0506&L=rpa-list&D=0&T=0&P=215:

CU students vote favors Churchill, but award withheld
By Amy Herdy
Denver Post Staff Writer
DenverPost.com 5/27/2005

Asked to nominate their favorite professor, students at the
University of Colorado at Boulder overwhelmingly picked Ward
Churchill. Yet the controversial figure's award is being withheld,
in part, due to his tendency to "antagonize and create enemies," the
head of the CU alumni association said.
"There are many things we say and do based on free speech," Kent
Zimmerman, president of the alumni association, the organization
that oversees the award, said Wednesday. "But how we say them can
make people more accepting of the message."

Zimmerman said the Teaching Recognition Award presented by The Herd,
the student arm of the alumni association, and its accompanying $500
prize will not go to Churchill until a panel is through
investigating allegations that he misrepresented his American Indian
heritage and committed plagiarism. 

"We're not saying he did not win, we're simply not awarding it until
his name has been cleared," said Zimmerman, who noted that while he
was responsible for the decision, he consulted members of the alumni
board and Herd student leaders. 

During a break while teaching Wednesday afternoon at CU, Churchill
said the decision "speaks for itself."  

"They're doing everything possible to discredit me," he said of
school officials, "and it certainly wouldn't look good in the middle
of all this nonsense (for me) to get an award from students." 

Churchill's attorney, David Lane, reacted strongly to news of the
situation.

"They are punishing Ward Churchill for his free speech by
withholding this award. ... There is a significant possibility I
will see Kent Zimmerman in federal district court in the near
future," Lane said.

One staff member said that she thought withholding the award was
unfair.

"If it's a student award, and it has nothing to do with the review,
then it shouldn't be withheld," graduate program assistant Mary
Gregory said, adding that she did not have a personal opinion on
Churchill.

One student described the situation as "hysterical."

"I think they're creating more scandal for themselves by withholding
this award, but I also don't know how much credence student awards
have," said Lansing Madry, 31, an atmospheric science doctoral
student. Another student said the volume of news about Churchill may
have sparked his win. "But it doesn't seem fair, if his students
voted for him, to withhold the award based on bureaucratic reasons,"
said Katelyn Hoban, 21, who will be a senior history major at CU
this fall.

"I think it's legitimate" to withhold the award, said Ann Ellis, 50,
an instructor in architecture and planning. "I think the students
voting on the award were trying to influence the investigation,"
Ellis said. Churchill is being evaluated, she said, "because the
university has a responsibility to make sure that its faculty
members are who they say they are."

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculously short

Does anyone else feel that the various article splits here are unnecessary? It makes the main article ridiculously short (in comparison to other articles) and Ward Churchill has been primarily recognized because of the 9/11 essay controversy and his misconduct allegations (whose articles are also ridiculously short). CJK 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP:SIZE:

• A rule of thumb.

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages (tables, list-like sections and markup excluded):

• >50KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
• >30KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists)
• >20KB - Might need to be divided
• <20KB - Probably should not be divided
• <1K - If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page

On 3 March 2006:

Ward Churchill:                             approx 17k
Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations):    approx 39k
Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy):    approx 18k
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:                                      approx 75k

Including words and lines:

   285    2283   18212 WC_essay_controversy
   258    2203   17372 WC
   638    5062   39009 WC_misconduct
  1181    9548   74593 total

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk • contribs).

I have a similar sense that at least this article would be better included in the original bio. The Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations) includes a lot of detail relevant to the allegations that I think overwhelms the bio. I have suggested that a longer summary of the allegation charges should be included in the bio, but I do not think the entire article should be. I could be convinced of the same thing on this article, but currently lean towards merging it back to the Ward Churchill article.

Also, as a point worth mentioning regarding WP:SIZE, a great deal of the total character count in the articles is URLs that do not display in the text. So I think that the size of the article is somewhat misleading as WP:SIZE is using the size to estimate word count and reading time, not as a measure of the download time for the article. There is probably a pretty significant reduction in the reported size that is necessary to determine how W:SIZE applies to the article. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Doug. Merging this with the main article would still leave it less than 50k. Also, I have not seen one (no not one) other article kept this ridiculously short. CJK 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please just drop this. The un-factoring is not going to happen, and I'm really sick of these pointless arguments for their own sake, or as ways to attack the subject of the article(s) (or to attack me for editing it). It is true that before the conceptually distinct areas were broken out (by me, yes), the page was at about 36k: a length where refactoring into summary style is desirable but not urgent. None of the parts are going to shrink though, but more likely grow slightly with time... they've grown a little bit already. The individual pieces (main bio, essay controversy) are just barely shy of the size where it is permissible to refactor, though I doubt that they will ever require any such further division. Actually, misconduct by itself is large enough that refactoring is not absurd; but there is no obvious or sensible division, so I think that's to be avoided. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The un-factoring is not going to happen Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess we're supposed to take your statement on that as law? – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's a little more analysis on the size:

Note that these articles have a large number of http links relative to their size. Since the guidelines in WP:SIZE are intended to estimate readable content, not downloadable size, subtracting those sizes yields:

Ward Churchill:                             approx 17k -  2k = 15k
Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations):    approx 39k -  6k = 33k
Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy):    approx 18k -  3k = 15k
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:                                      approx 75k - 11k = 64k

However, also subtracting the references and lists of books/articles (which are for reference, and not typically "read" as part of the article), gives sizes of:

Ward Churchill:                             approx 17k -  8k =  9k
Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations):    approx 39k -  8k = 31k
Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy):    approx 18k -  5k = 13k
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:                                      approx 75k - 21k = 54k

So while I think that combining all of the articles into a single article is not suggested, certainly, the bio and the essay controversy have no issue with WP:SIZE. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you look at the George W Bush article I previously mentioned? I worked hard to get the innuendo and allegations put in a subarticle rather than on the main page...examine the substance abuse section. In other words, are the 9/11 essay and misconduct sections based on facts, or allegations? In the Bush article, a huge number of editors wanted all the innuendo, all the bad opinion based jargon on the main page and I think I drove a lot of folks there mad with my non stop insistance that it was just a lot of opinion. We kept the facts only and left the opinion and speculation out of the main article.--MONGO 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

(Deleted repeated post from Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters about name change.)

I recently changed the name of this article from Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy) to Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy. For a discussion of the name change and an equivalent name change to the Ward Churchill misconduct allegations page, please see the discussion at Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations#Article name. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tenants not relevant?

Lulu thought my edit adding a link to a list of actual tenants (which shows their large diversity beyond the financial realm) was POV. Fine, I'd dispute it but it's a reasonable dispute. But why not rephrase it NPOV and leave the link in? I'll try putting it in a different manner to see whether relevant factual evidence belongs in an article about Ward Churchill in his opinion. TMLutas 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to see how a personal essay/editorial about the content of Churchill's paper could ever be NPOV. But even if it could be improved appropriately, it's not close to lead material for this article. In fact, I doubt it has any real relevance to this particular article at all; it might be possible to fit it in the article on On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. If so, it's also not central enough for the lead over there, but it might be worth putting in a footnote or later section. LotLE×talk 19:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

First you edit because I'm showing a point of view. Now you say that NPOV is not reachable. This is confusing at the very least.

The relevance is that factually, Churchill's labeling of the people in the WTC complex as little Eichmans is simply wrong. That it's morally odious as well is a separate issue. The factual accuracy of the charge is essential to any article on the controversy over it. If it is true, there is no controversy, just manufactured outrage. If it is false, it is a horrible thing and he should be condemned.

Dehumanization is what he's after and knowing the tenant company names, what they do, that they covered a broad range of business types, this truth is uncomfortable for him and his cheering section. Why hide the truth entirely or shove it off to a footnote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs).