Ward Churchill misconduct allegations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main articles: Ward Churchill and Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy

In late September 2001 Ward Churchill published a controversial essay about the September 11, 2001 attacks, entitled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". In that essay, Churchill argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks and questioned the innocence of 9/11 victims characterizing some as "little Eichmanns". National attention was drawn to the essay in January 2005, when Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College as a panelist in a debate titled "Limits of Dissent". This increased attention led to a greater examination of other works by Churchill as well as the man himself. As a result, allegations, both old and new, were raised against Churchill accusing him of academic fraud and plagiarism, and questioning his claims of Native American heritage.

In response, the University of Colorado administrators ordered an investigation into the allegations concerning academic misconduct. The committee declined to address the issue of Churchill's ethnic heritage. On May 16, 2006, the committee released its investigative committee findings. The investigative committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in academic misconduct. In addition, the committee found him "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions."

The university's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct voted that Churchill should be dismissed. Chancellor Phil DiStefano then recommended to the University's Board of Regents that Churchill be dismissed. Churchill has denied any wrongdoing, and has vowed to contest his firing in the court system.

Outside the university investigation, Churchill has been accused of threatening several colleagues. Critics contend that a statement by Churchill that soldiers killing their commanding officers is more "impactful" than is conscientious objection constitutes criminal advocacy of fragging.

Contents

[edit] Questioned ethnicity

Churchill has said that though he is less than one-quarter Indian [1], he had been an associate member of the Keetoowah tribe. In an article in Socialism and Democracy magazine, he stated, "I am myself of Muscogee and Creek descent on my father's side, Cherokee on my mother's, and am an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians."[2]

While Churchill was never an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band, he was granted an honorary associate membership in May 1994. However, the United Keetoowah Band discontinued the associate rolls in July 1994.[3] In May 19, 2005, the United Keetoowah Band issued a statement explaining Churchill's status:

Ward Churchill received an "Associate Membership" from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma (UKB) council in May, 1994. He was not eligible for tribal membership due to the fact that he does not possess a “Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood” (CDIB) which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Interior / Bureau of Indian Affairs. Because Mr. Churchill had genealogical information regarding his alleged ancestry, and his willingness to assist the UKB in promoting the tribe and its causes, he was awarded an ‘Associate Membership’ as an honor. However, Mr. Churchill may possess eligibility status for Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, since he claims 1/16 Cherokee.[4]

—United Keetoowah Band , Final Statement Regarding Ward Churchill

The Denver Post reported that a review of Churchill's matrilineal genealogy on Ancestry.com shows no proof of Native American ancestry going back to his great-great-grandparents. Based on Census and Social Security Administration records all matrilineal ancestors of Ward Churchill are listed either as "White" or as "race unknown." [5] The Rocky Mountain News did a similar review of Churchill's family records and reached the conclusion that Churchill's claims of American Indian ancestry are based on family lore and are not supported, writing that "an extensive genealogical search by the Rocky Mountain News identified 142 direct forebears of Churchill and turned up no evidence of a single Indian ancestor among them."[6][7]

Ernestine Berry, who was on the tribe's enrollment committee (Keetoowah) and served on the tribal council for four years, told the The Denver Post: "He (Churchill) was trying to get recognized as an Indian. He could not prove he was an Indian (Cherokee) at all." [8] In an interview in The Rocky Mountain News, Churchill stated: "I have never been confirmed as having one-quarter blood, and never said I was. And even if (the critics) are absolutely right, what does that have to do with this issue? I have never claimed to be goddamned Sitting Bull".[9]

It is not unusual for Americans who claim some Native American ancestry, but whose families live within the mainstream community, and who know their heritage only from family tradition, to encounter difficulty proving their claim to Indian ethnicity to the satisfaction of administrators of affirmative action programs. Many universities use membership in a recognized tribe as the legitimate marker of Indian identity for AA purposes.[10]

Some members in the Native American community also question Churchill's claim of partial Indian heritage. Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo indicated that Churchill could not name his family members that are enrolled in the Creek Tribe. Harjo states:

As Churchill has lurched through Indian identities, he has not found a single Native relative or ancestor. He is descended from a long line of Churchills that Hank Adams has traced back to the Revolutionary War and Europe. Adams, who is Assiniboine-Sioux and a member of the Frank's Landing Indian Community, has successfully researched and exposed other pseudo-Indians. Adams traced Churchill's ancestors on both sides of his family, finding all white people, including documented slave owners and at least one spy, but zero Indians.[11]

—Suzan Shown Harjo , What Native identity matters: A cautionary tale

Creek-Cherokee historian Robert W. Trepp did not find Churchill's family members on the Muscogee (Creek) Nation rolls.[11] Dennis Banks a co-founder of the American Indian Movement, and opponent of the breakaway American Indian Movement of Colorado, has stated that Churchill does not represent the American Indian Movement and is not an Indian.[12]

[edit] Indian "wannabee"?

John LaVelle has commented of Churchill:

Through the course of all his writings, Churchill gradually has emerged as a spokesman of sorts for those persons derisively referred to as Indian "wannabees"—individuals with no American Indian ancestry or tribal affiliation who nonetheless hold themselves out to the public as "Indians" by aggressively inserting themselves into the political affairs of real Indian people. Churchill's appeal among the "wannabees" lies both in the boldness with which he expresses contempt for Indian tribes, and in the scholarly facade he gives his anti-tribal propositions.

— John P. LaVelle, American Indian Quarterly''

[edit] Churchill's criticism of Indian "authenticity"

Churchill has countered requests for verification of his Indian heritage in various ways including attacking the basis on which some Native American tribes establish their membership requirements. Churchill argues that the United States instituted so-called "blood quantum" laws based upon rules of descendency in order to further goals of personal enrichment and political expediency.[13][14]

See also the below discussion of the The General Allotment Act.

[edit] Effects on career

Churchill's critics argue that his assertion of Native American ancestry without the ability to prove it might constitute misrepresentation and grounds for termination. The University has stated in response that they do not hire on the basis of ethnicity:

[G]iven the fact that equal opportunity is the law of the land and that positions in the public sector are to be awarded to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and based only on their ability to do the job, the university does not believe that any attempt to remove Mr. Churchill because of his ethnicity or race would be appropriate.
Even if Mr. Churchill is not an American Indian, as he claims, Title VII protects Caucasians as well as persons of color. Further, it has always been university policy that a person's race or ethnicity is self-proving.[15]

— University of Colorado , Statement to Rocky Mountain News

However, there is evidence that the university did consider Churchill's ethnicity as part of its hiring process. First, Communications department chair Michael Pacanowsky, in an email on 10 January 1991 wrote: "Ward's file was circulated to sociology and political science, and they did not agree to roster him in their departments. Because Ward's graduate degree, an MA, was in communications, we were contacted next." Pacanowsky characterizes Churchill's work as not being part of the "mainstream in our discipline," then argues that by appointing Churchill, the department would be "making our own contribution to increasing the cultural diversity on campus (Ward is a native American)."[16]

Second, documents in Churchill’s personnel file show that he was hired into a "special opportunity position." Contemporary university policy describes such positions as the result of a program designed to help "recruit and hire a more diverse faculty."[17]

The University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee conducted a preliminary investigation into whether Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity in order to "make his scholarship more widely accepted." However, the Committee declined to pursue ethnic fraud charges against Churchill, as such issues are not covered in the official definition of "research misconduct."

[edit] Allegations of research misconduct

In February 2005, during the height of the media firestorm surrounding his "little Eichmans" comments, Churchill publicly challenged anyone to find fault with his scholarship. The media took up the challenge and a number of allegations of research misconduct were reported.

Federal regulations that define "research misconduct" specify three types of misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Churchill was investigated by the University of Colorado's standing Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, which found that he had falsified and fabricated information, and plagiarized two different essays.[18]

[edit] Was there a smallpox blanket genocide?

In several essays, Churchill argues that the U.S. Army deliberately distributed smallpox-infected blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837 to spark a smallpox pandemic, and that hundreds of thousands of Indians died of smallpox as a consequence. Other scholars who have studied this episode agree that smallpox killed many Indians in this time frame, but deny that there is any evidence to support Churchill's allegations of deliberate genocide by means of smallpox blankets. They also charge Churchill with exaggerating the death toll and with falsifying the sources he cites in support of his claims.

In November 2004, Guenter Lewy, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, published an essay charging Churchill with misrepresenting his sources. Lewy says Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets in 1837 is false. "He just makes things up," said Lewy. Lewy calls Churchill's claim of 100,000 deaths from the incident "obviously absurd".[19][20]

In an article in the journal "Plagiary" entitled "Did the US Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill's Genocide Rhetoric", Lamar University sociology professor Thomas Brown also accused Churchill of fabricating the incident and falsifying his sources.[21] Brown argues that Churchill's claim that his cited source--Russell Thornton--supports Churchill's smallpox blanket allegations is a falsification of Thornton. Brown also charges Churchill with fabricating the presence of US Army personnel on the scene, with fabricating the distribution of blankets taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis, and with concealing evidence in his possession that disconfirms his allegations.

Three of the authors that Churchill cites in support of his smallpox thesis, Evan Connell, RG Robertson and Russell Thornton, have rejected Churchill's interpretation of their work. Thornton characterized Churchill's smallpox thesis as "fabrication." [22]

Churchill continues to maintain that his description of events at Fort Clark is correct, and that he has obtained new supporting data.[23]

The May 2006 report by the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado corroborated Churchill's critics. The committee concluded that for over a period of 10 years, Churchill consistently falsified his sources and fabricated claims regarding the Fort Clark epidemic. The committee criticized Churchill for failing to recognize and correct his errors, and for his insistence that he intends to republish his indictment of genocide in the future without substantive changes. The committee also criticized Churchill for answering his critics with ad hominem attacks instead of reason and evidence.

Additionally, the committee found Churchill guilty of serious research misconduct in his claims that John Smith initiated a smallpox epidemic against Wampanoag Indians in the 17th century. The committee determined that Churchill had fabricated this event, and falsified his sources.

[edit] The General Allotment Act

In two articles published in the 1990s, University of New Mexico law professor John P. LaVelle, an enrolled member of the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, alleged that Churchill has repeatedly published false claims about the General Allotment Act, mistakenly attributing a "blood quantum" standard of Indianness to the Allotment Act.[24][25]

Churchill in his defense acknowledges that the term "blood quantum" is not used in the General Allotment Act, but maintains that the term is an accurate summary of the what he describes as the eugenics component of the Act. According to Churchill [Under] blood-quantum standard […] through intermarriage, future generations of Indians would be of progressively less native blood, until they couldn't meet the legal standard and tribes would disappear altogether.[26]

The Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado, released in May 2006, agreed with LaVelle that the blood quantum requirement is not present in the Dawes Act, and that Churchill had repeatedly misrepresented the requirement as falling within the Act itself. The Committee also observed that most tribes did choose to impose blood quantum standards for tribal membership during the historical era of the General Allotment Act, and that Churchill's larger argument thus had some validity, even though he misrepresented the contents of the Act.[27]

LaVelle agrees with Churchill that the Act represents a contemptible effort by Congress … to strip Indian tribes of all collectively held lands, force Indian people to assimilate into white society, and generally undermine the tribes' territorial sovereignty. However, LaVelle argues that Churchill has falsified the Act in order to support his eugenics charges. LaVelle notes that the Code of Federal Regulations gave tribes free reign to define their membership in any way they choose for the purposes of allotment, and that the tribes themselves have chosen to set blood quantum standards for membership. LaVelle argues that Churchill's attack on the tribes' standards constitutes an attack on tribal sovereignty. LaVelle complains that Churchill disguises his attack on tribal blood quantum standards by falsely attributing the source of those standards to the Allotment Act.[24][28]

According to LaVelle, Churchill has not responded directly to LaVelle's specific charges to explain in detail how the Act introduced a blood quantum. LaVelle went through Churchill's works essay by essay, and says that Churchill had not cited evidence for his claim that the Allotment Act imposed a blood-quantum standard: This lack of a supporting citation is explained by the fact that … the (Dawes Act) never contained any such federally imposed eligibility 'code' at all.[24] LaVelle states that part of his initial concern was that Churchill's claims about the Dawes Act—which LaVelle characterizes as a "hoax"—were "seeping" into the scholarly literature.[24]

Churchill responded to LaVelle's critique by comparing the number of times his articles have been cited to the number of times LaVelle has been cited:[29]

In academia, you measure the influence of your publications via what's called the "Citation Index," that is, a literal count of the number of times your material is cited by others. Neither of LaVelle's essays on the Allotment Act, the first of which came out in the American Indian Quarterly almost a decade ago, has ever been cited by an Indian legal scholar. Not once.

— Ward Churchill, Statement to Counterpunch''

Churchill acknowledges elsewhere that LaVelle's work on the Allotment Act has been cited by two scholars; but uses a phrase from Robert Porter, in describing LaVelle's legal interpretation as being designed to "put a happy face on colonialism."[29][30] Churchill claims of his own citation that he was "as of mid-2001, the most cited ethnic studies scholar in the country".[29]

The subcommittee contrasted the narrow issues of proper scholarship with the broader historical patterns under discussion:

[T]he Committee finds that no general hoax of the type suggested by some of Professor LaVelle’s broader claims was perpetrated by Professor Churchill, since the core of his broad point (i.e., that the General Allotment Act of 1887, as implemented, required—albeit by implication—some Indian blood quantum to be eligible for an allotment) is correct, or at least clearly arguable. We find as well, however, that most of details and embellishments of that claim made by Professor Churchill are historically inaccurate or literally incorrect. Getting the general point correct but virtually all of the historical details wrong is certainly not the level of careful professional work one would expect of an ethnic studies scholar writing on important historical events in Indian studies.

— Investigative Committee, CU Standing Committee on Research Misconduct

The report found that Churchill had fabricated his claim that the GAA contains a blood quantum, and falsified his evidence in support of that claim. Specifically, the committee stated that Churchill used as "independent" evidence for his claims two essays that Churchill later described as having ghostwritten "from the ground up." The committee also criticized Churchill for answering his critics with ad hominem instead of reason and evidence.

[edit] Findings of Plagiarism

The University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee concluded that Ward Churchill plagiarized the writing of three different authors.

[edit] Annette Jaimes and Rebecca Robbins

John LaVelle was the first to publicly note that several of Churchill's essays share similarities with an earlier essay by Annette Jaimes, Churchill's ex-wife. Additional plagiarism allegations stem from portions of an essay Churchill published in 1993 that closely resemble a 1992 essay published by Rebecca L. Robbins. However, "LaVelle did not accuse Churchill of [plagiarizing the Jaimes passages], one of the most serious offenses in academia. On the contrary, LaVelle speculated that Churchill might have been the author of all the works. The ideology, rhetoric and writing style" of the Jaimes piece are 'interchangeable' with positions that Churchill takes in his books, LaVelle wrote".[31]

Churchill also asserts that he himself is the original author of the material in question, and thus has not plagiarized either Jaimes or Robbins: "I'm free to make disposition of my ideas and my material any way I see fit… That's my understanding of the situation… If there's an issue around that, then there's an issue around that." Churchill says that he ghostwrote the material to help Jaimes' career: "All you need to do is take a piece of Annette Jaimes' material, which is published—and she's published things that I didn't (write) - take her stuff, stack it up next (to mine), set it side by side, and read the two… You tell me who's writing this. We don't need to get into forensics to do it."[32]

Jaimes denies that Churchill wrote the material in dispute, and calls him "a liar." Jaimes complains that Churchill is jeopardizing her career to defend himself from the plagiarism allegations, and said "He's despicable." Robbins has refused to comment publicly on the matter, but Jaimes says that she saw an early draft of Robbins' essay, and that the matter in question is original to Robbins.[32]

Because both Robbins and Jaimes refused to testify for the committee, it took Churchill's word that he was the original author of the essays published under Robbins and Jaimes's names. However, the committee still found Churchill guilty of "serious research misconduct" with regards to the Robbins and Jaimes essays, for failing to follow accepted practices of attributing authorship, and for citing in works published under his own name to these essays that he had ghostwritten, as if they were independent sources.

[edit] Dam the Dams

University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee also investigated allegations that Churchill plagiarized a pamphlet entitled "The Water Plot"—originally published by Dam the Dams, a Canadian activist group in 1972—and republished it under his own name several times.[33]

Churchill first republished the "Water Plot" essay in 1989, when he credited the piece both to the original authors as well as to the "Institute for Natural Progress." In three subsequent publications, twice in 1993 and once in 2002, Churchill took sole credit for substantially the same essay. Churchill says that he did not plagiarize the essay in 1993, but rather that the editors of Z Magazine incorrectly excised Dam the Dams from the byline. Churchill also says he did not plagiarize in 2002, because he added additional material of his own to the essay, and because he cited Dam the Dams as one of his sources in the footnotes.[33]

The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill repeatedly plagiarized the Water Plot pamphlet, and that Churchill's "misconduct was not accidental, but deliberate."[34].

[edit] Fay Cohen

The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill had plagiarized the work of Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, and republished it in a book edited by his wife Annette Jaimes. The previous year, Churchill had edited his own book of collected essays, which had included Cohen’s chapter on fishing rights. Churchill then solicited Cohen’s essay for republication in his wife’s book. Cohen refused to grant Churchill and Jaimes permission to republish the essay.

In Jaimes’ book, the essay in question is attributed to the “Institute for Natural Progress,” the same pseudonym under which Churchill had previously published the disputed "Water Plot" essay. In the back matter, Jaimes writes that Churchill “assumed the lead role in preparing" the essay; he characterized his role as similar to a newspaper’s “rewrite man,” who takes materials gathered by others and works them into a final version for publication.

After the Jaimes book was published, Cohen asked lawyers at her university to assess her rights in the matter. An internal Dalhousie University report concluded that "[t]he article … is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said, summarizing the report's findings in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News.

Churchill says that he has not committed plagiarism because he never said he wrote the essay.[35] The CU investigative committee found Churchill's defense "implausible," observing that Churchill did claim authorship of the essay in his Faculty Report of Professional Activity for the year 1991, followed by the parenthetical notation “for the Institute for Natural Progress.” The committee concluded that Churchill's involvement in plagiarizing Cohen's essay constitutes an act of research misconduct.[34]

[edit] Allegations of copyright infringement and art fraud

Four authors have come forward to accuse Churchill of publishing their work without their permission.[36] Robert T. Coulter, a lawyer and member of the Potawatomi Nation, has accused Churchill of taking a class that Coulter taught on the status of American Indian nations and having publishing notes distributed in the class without written permission. Coulter has criticized not only Churchill's republication of the handout, but also Churchill's addition of his own endnotes. He said: I would never have permitted that—especially [by] Ward Churchill. He's not a lawyer. He doesn't have the skill or expertise to add [endnotes] to a paper on my own subject.[36]

University of Minnesota Professor Brenda Child alleges that Churchill printed in his latest book on Indian boarding schools a photograph that Child had taken and previously published in her own book on the same topic".[37] The photo depicts the grave of an Indian child who had died while at school. Child complains that Churchill never requested or obtained her permission to use her photo. Furthermore, Child complains that Churchill's caption to her photo cites her while estimating that one half of Indian children died at boarding schools. Child characterizes Churchill's estimate as a "tremendous exaggeration".

There are allegations questioning the originality of some of Churchill’s artwork. In particular, "Winter Attack", a 1981 serigraph signed by Ward Churchill, may be a copyright infringement of a 1972 drawing by Thomas E. Mails.[38] Churchill has responded that "[t]he whole issue is utterly contrived." He claims he spoke to Mails about adapting the imagery before using it, an adaptation which he said "[t]here was nothing unusual about." [39] Ryan Mails, the son of the late Thomas Mails, said that he could not imagine that his father "would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces." [38] In a similar style, Churchill sold an ink sketch of a public domain photograph from 1877 by Charles M. Bell. [40] The photograph of an Oglala Sioux Warrior is titled "Little Big Man". The online journal Artnet discusses the controversy surrounding Churchill's artwork, the questions regarding its originality, and the increased interest in sales of his work that has resulted. [41]

[edit] The University of Colorado's Investigation

Seven misconduct charges against Churchill have been investigated by the University of Colorado's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. The Committee has defined its jurisdiction narrowly in Churchill's case, limited to the three dimensions of research misconduct that are specified in the federal regulations. The Standing Committee has declined to pursue the various charges of copyright violation that do not meet the legal definition of "plagiarism" and are not covered in the federal misconduct regulations. The Committee's investigative subcommittee has completed its investigation into the various charges of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification, brought by Professors Brown, Lavelle, and Cohen, a charge of fabrication published by Kevin Vaughan of the Rocky Mountain News,[22] as well as Churchill's alleged plagiarism of the "Water Plot" pamphlet and the Fay Cohen essay.

The University released its investigative committee findings on May 16, 2006. The committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct," including four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.”

Following the sub-committee report's release, Churchill called the report "self-contradictory" and "patently false".

As things stand, the entire procedure appears to be little more than a carefully-orchestrated effort to cast an aura of legitimacy over an entirely illegitimate set of predetermined outcomes. It follows that I reject and will vigorously contest each and every finding of misconduct.[42]

— Ward Churchill , A Travesty of an "Investigation"

The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct disagreed on what sanctions should be imposed on Churchill. Six members voted for dismissal. Two members voted for a five year suspension without pay, and one voted for a two year suspension without pay. Churchill's actual punishment was determined by the University Chancellor, who recommended to the Board of Regents that Churchill be dismissed. The Chancellor relieved Churchill of his duties on June 13, 2006 pending the outcome of this process,[43] and is reviewing whether an investigation is warranted for additional recently presented charges.[44][45]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Craig Gima (February 23). Churchill attacks essay’s critics. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
  2. ^ Ward Churchill (2002). "An American Holocaust? The Structure of Denial". Socialism and Democracy 19 (3).
  3. ^ "Effective immediately, the UKB ceases to grant and/or recognize any/all future UKB Associate Memberships" - United Keetoowah Band Membership Amendment, 94-UKB-12A, July 9, 1994.
  4. ^ United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (May 19, 2005). Final Statement from the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians Regarding Ward Churchill. Press release.
  5. ^ Ward Churchill's American Indian heritage questioned (gif). Unknown (March 7).
  6. ^ Ancestors of Ward Churchill (pdf). Rocky Mountain News (March 7).
  7. ^ Kevin Flynn (June 8). Special report: The Churchill files; The charge: Misrepresentation (hmtl). Rocky Mountain News.
  8. ^ Howard Pankratz (February 3). CU prof affirms Indian heritage. Denver Post.
  9. ^ Year in quotes. Rocky Mountain News (December 25).
  10. ^ Tom Brune (May 26). Can You Prove You're a Minority?. Seattle Times.
  11. ^ a b Suzan Shown Harjo (February 10). Why Native identity matters: A cautionary tale. Indian Country Today.
  12. ^ American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council, Ministry for Information (2005). Statement on Ward Churchill. Press release.
  13. ^ Churchill explained his belief to oral historian David Barsamian:

    You could say that five hundred years ago was the basis of blood quantum in Ibero-America. But in Anglo-America, while there was some preoccupation with it, it was not formalized until the passage of the General Allotment Act, mid-1880s. At that point they began to define Indian as being someone who was demonstrably and documentably of at least one-quarter by quantum blood indigenous in a given group. You couldn't be an eighth Cheyenne and an eighth Arapaho and be an Indian. You had to be a quarter Cheyenne or a quarter Arapaho or hopefully a quarter and a quarter. The reason for this was quite clear. They were identifying Indians for purposes of allotting them individual parcels of land in the existing reservation base at that point. If they ran out of Indians identifiable as such, then the rest of the land would be declared surplus. So it was clearly in the interests of the government to create a definition of Indianness that would minimize the number of Indians that were available. It was an economic motivation for the application of this genetic criteria to Indianness in the first place. It's become increasingly so ever since." (David Barsamian interviews Ward Churchill (1995). "Historical and Current Perspectives". Z Magazine December.)

  14. ^ Churchill's argument about dilution of tribal membership is controversial, however. According to Circe Sturm, for example, the largest of the federally recognized Cherokee tribes—the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma—does not impose any blood quantum requirements for membership. It requires only that an applicant prove descent from a person listed on official Cherokee rolls.(Sturm, Circe (2002). Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.)
  15. ^ Charlie Brennan And Stuart Steers (February 17). Red-flagged career: Churchill's tenure at CU marked by warnings of trouble. Rocky Mountain News.
  16. ^ Rocky Mountain News, 19 Febrary 2005
  17. ^ Elizabeth Mattern Clark, “Churchill's file details rise at CU: Professor rewarded after Sept. 11, 2001, essay written,” Daily Camera, 19 February 2005
  18. ^ Ward's research shoddy by Casey Freeman, Colorado Daily(May 16, 2006).
  19. ^ Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?
  20. ^ Rocky Mountain News: Local
  21. ^ http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf
  22. ^ a b Kevin Vaughan (June 5). Did Ward Churchill falsely accuse the U.S. Army in small pox epidemic? Our findings: His claim isn't supported by the sources he has cited. Rocky Mountain News.
  23. ^ Ward Churchill (quoted) (November 1). [1] RMN article]. Rocky Mountain News.
  24. ^ a b c d http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/allotment-act.pdf
  25. ^ http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/american-indian-quarterly.pdf
  26. ^ Error on call to Template:cite web: Parameters url and title must be specified. Rocky Mountain News.
  27. ^ http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchill
  28. ^ http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/american-indian-quarterly.pdf
  29. ^ a b c Joshua Frank. An Interview with Ward Churchill: Accusations and Smears. Counterpunch (July 18, 2005). Retrieved on May 24, 2006.
  30. ^ Robert B. Porter (2002). "Two Kinds of Indians, Two Kinds of Indian Nation Sovereignty: A Surreply to Professor LaVelle". Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 11: 629, 645–48..
  31. ^ Berny Morson. [Rocky Mountain News: Local 1993 essay also raises questions]. Rocky Mountain News (June 6, 2005). Retrieved on May 24, 2006.
  32. ^ a b Rocky Mountain News: Local
  33. ^ a b Rocky Mountain News: Local
  34. ^ a b http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf
  35. ^ Rocky Mountain News: Local
  36. ^ a b http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_3830231,00.html
  37. ^ Berny Morson. Photo lastest fuel in Churchill flap, Author says CU prof used picture of hers without permission. Rocky Mountain News (16 May 2006).
  38. ^ a b cbs4denver.com - 'Original' Churchill Art Piece Creates Controversy
  39. ^ TheDenverChannel.com - News - Churchill: Artwork Issue Utterly Contrived
  40. ^ Michelle Malkin: Another Bizarre Twist In The Ward Churchill Saga
  41. ^ Artnet describing the controversy around Ward Churchill's artwork
  42. ^ Ward Churchill (May 16). A Travesty of an "Investigation". Counterpunch.
  43. ^ Panel recommends firing Colo. professor. AP (June 13, 2006). Retrieved on June 14, 2006.
  44. ^ CU to Ernesto Vigil, 17 April 2006, http://www.khow.com/pages/img/cs-churchill%20copy.gif
  45. ^ Sara Burnett. CU reviewing new charges leveled against Churchill. Rocky Mountain News (May 11, 2006). Retrieved on May 20, 2006.

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/r/Ward_Churchill_misconduct_allegations_1fb9.html"