Perhaps I Misspoke

Every once in awhile I'm tempted to think "I've seen it all." Maybe it is just for the sake of keeping this world interesting, but every time I'm so tempted something egregiously stupid comes along to spice things up. This defense (!) of Ward Churchill is a prime example of what I mean. The author is Ira Chernus, a Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado, but don't let those titles intimidate you. The man, by his own admission knows nothing, not that that stops him from voicing his opinion.

After all, the faculty's Research Misconduct Committee produced a voluminous report detailing his supposed misconduct. It's the basis for firing Churchill.

Was the committee fair and accurate in its assessment? To be honest, I don't know. How could I? I'm not an expert in Native American Studies. I don't have the knowledge or experience to make an informed judgment.

Did you get that? We are not allowed to make a judgement on Ward Churchill writing essays under assumed names to use as support for his work because we are not experts on Native American Studies. We must also stay silent about Churchill's invention of entire historical incidents out of whole cloth, which is a matter of fact not conjecture, as Professor Thomas Brown has ably shown:

Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them.

It is a distressing conclusion. One wants to think the best of fellow scholars. The scholarly enterprise depends on mutual trust. When one scholar violates that trust, it damages the legitimacy of the entire academy. Churchill has fabricated a genocide that never happened. It is difficult to conceive of a social scientist committing a more egregious violation.

Of course, Professor Chernus throws up his hands and exclaims that he can only be agnostic about such questions because he is totally at sea when questions turn to history. If that is true I urge Chernus to resign now. He can do nothing but serve his students ill by his continued presence. You never know when you will be asked your opinion on something outside you area of "expertise."

It's funny.... Chernus' obvious ignorance of civil liberties, procedural law, the principles of academic honesty, academic freedom, and scientific inquiry haven't kept him from voicing his support of Mr. Churchill. I guess the defense of "agnostic ignorance" only takes him so far.

This is how Chernus sees the situation:

It's still a rare occasion when a tenured professor is fired because he is an outspoken leftist. But every time a witchhunt is successful, it encourages other right-wingers to go after their favorite target. It brings the next witchhunt closer and increases the odds that it will succeed.

I'm an outspoken leftie professor at the University of Colorado too, so I've got a personal stake in this. Someone once asked me to wear a big button that said, "I am Ward Churchill." I said I'd prefer a button reading, "I am Next."

Of course, if Professor Chernus sees his own research standards echoed in Churchill's work he might well be worried. But I'd be satisfied if he lived up to his own supposed standards and remain quiet when he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

One wonders when he would ever speak.