COLORADO CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS REPORT ON THE TERMINATION OF WARD CHURCHILL November 1, 2011 This report is issued by the Colorado Committee to Protect Faculty Rights (CCPFR), a standing committee of the Colorado Conference of the AAUP. The CCPFR is part of the Colorado Conference and is not affiliated with Committee A of the national AAUP. Don Eron Suzanne Hudson Myron Hulen Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill Table of Contents I. Executive Summary 6 II. Table of Names, Acronyms, and Organizations 11 III. Introduction 14 A. The Basis of the Colorado Conference‘s Investigation 15 IV. Churchill‘s Early Careers 17 A. Churchill‘s Indian Heritage and Service in Vietnam 17 B. The Roots of Radicalism 17 C. An Activist and Prolific Writer 18 V. Churchill‘s Career at the University of Colorado, Boulder—Before the Firestorm 20 A. The Activist as Scholar and Educator 20 B. Staff, Administrator, Lecturer: 1978-1991 20 C. An Indian Hire? 21 D. The AIM Split and ―Fake Indians‖ 23 E. Another Promotion: Full Professor 25 VI. ―Some People Push Back‖ – 9/12/2001 27 VII. The Firestorm—2005 30 A. Public and Political Pressure on the University 30 B. CU Regents Join the Fray 32 VIII. Faculty Support for Churchill 37 IX. The Process for Terminating Ward Churchill 39 A. Chancellor‘s Subcommittee on Churchill‘s First Amendment Rights 39 B. Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (SCRM) 42 C. SCRM Subcommittee: The Investigative Committee (IC) 42 1. Appropriate Research Expertise 42 2. An Unbiased Investigation 45 3. 120 Calendar Days 46 4. Established Standards 46 5. Nonadversarial Proceedings 48 -2- Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill D. The IC‘s Recommendation to SCRM 50 E. SCRM‘s Recommendation to the Chancellor 51 F. Allegations of the IC‘s Research Misconduct 52 G. Churchill‘s Appeal to the Privilege and Tenure Committee (P&T) 53 H. P&T‘s Recommendation to the President 55 I. The President‘s Recommendation to the Board of Regents 55 J. Board of Regents Vote to Terminate Churchill 55 X. Churchill Sues the Board of Regents 57 XII. Epilogue 58 XIII. Analysis of Charges against Ward Churchill 59 A. Introduction 59 1. If He Was Guilty, Who Cares that the Investigation Was Improper? 59 2. But What If Churchill Wasn‘t Guilty? 59 3. A Brief Overview of the IC‘s Method for Assessing Churchill‘s Guilt 60 B. Allegation A: Alleged Fabrications Regarding General Allotment Act of 1887 62 1. The Allegation 62 2. The IC‘s Findings 62 3. Our Analysis 63 a. Falsifying Evidence: The General Allotment Act 63 b. Falsifying Evidence: Janet McDonnell 's Book 64 c. Embellishing Facts and Details of the General Allotment Act 65 d. Citation of the Robbins and Jaimes Essays 67 e. Churchill‘s Refusal to Back Down 69 C. Allegation B: Misrepresentation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 71 1. The Allegation 71 2. The IC‘s Findings 72 3. Our Analysis 72 a. It‘s Not Literally in the Act, Redux 72 -3- Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill b. Misrepresentation and Distortion of Sources 74 c. It‘s Academic Misconduct Not to Debate LaVelle? 75 D. Allegation C: Captain John Smith and Smallpox in New England, 1614-1618 76 1. The Allegation 76 2. The IC‘s Findings 76 3. Our Analysis 76 a. Churchill‘s Use of Salisbury 76 b. Evidence That the Disease Was Smallpox 77 c. The Incubation Period of Smallpox 78 d. Circumstantial Evidence 79 e. Methodology 81 E. Allegation D: Misrepresentation of Smallpox Epidemic at Fort Clark and Beyond, 1837-1840 83 1. The Allegation 83 2. The IC‘s Findings 83 3. Our Analysis 84 a. Not His Primary Example 85 b. Clash of Methodologies 85 c. Exoneration (After Twenty-nine Pages of Condemnation) 86 d. Respect for Oral Traditions 87 e. Books without Page Numbers, Redux 88 f. The Source of the Smallpox Epidemic of 1837 88 g. Army Doctors and Post Surgeons 88 h. Scatter! 89 i. Withholding the Vaccine 90 j. A Dispute over the Number Killed 91 k. Convicted of Future Misconduct 92 F. The IC‘s Allegations of Plagiarism 93 G. Allegation E: Plagiarism of a Pamphlet by the Dam the Dams Group 94 1. The Allegation 94 2. The IC‘s Findings 94 3. Our Analysis 94 a. Sufficient Credit for Dam the Dams 94 -4- Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill b. Adherence to Scholarly Conventions 96 c. Plagiarism and the "Moral Indignation" Factor 98 H. Allegation F: Plagiarism of a Paper by Professor Rebecca Robbins 100 1. The Allegation 100 2. The IC‘s Findings 100 3. Our Analysis 100 a. Churchill Wrote the Robbins Essay (So It Couldn't Have Been Plagiarism) 100 b. Well, Maybe It's Not Plagiarism, But We Have to Find Him Guilty of Something 101 c. Credit Where Credit Is Due 101 d. Creating the False Appearance of Support 102 e. The Exclusive Domain of Knowledge 104 I. Allegation G: Plagiarism of Work by Professor Fay G. Cohen 106 1. The Allegation 106 2. The IC‘s Findings 106 3. Our Analysis 106 a. Cohen‘s Essay Was Definitely Plagiarized 106 b. But Is Churchill the One Who Plagiarized Cohen? 108 c. Well, Maybe It‘s Not Plagiarism, But We Have to Find Him Guilty of Something, Redux 112 XIV. Violations of AAUP Standards 114 A. Violation of Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances 114 B. Violations of the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings 115 XV. Conclusion 120 XVI. Endnotes 123 -5- Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill Executive Summary Ward Churchill was dismissed from the University of Colorado (CU) in 2007, having been convicted of plagiarism as well as fabrication and falsification of evidence for his claims that the United States government had been complicit in the genocide of Native Americans. It was Churchill‘s essay of September 12, 2001, that drew attention to him— an essay that called victims of the attack on the World Trade Center ―little Eichmanns.‖ For four years the essay, titled ―Some People Push Back,‖ went unnoticed, but in 2005 it caught the attention of faculty and administrators at Hamilton College in New York, and from there it went viral, becoming the topic of nonstop media commentary that lasted for months. Beginning in February 2005, a firestorm of public opinion raged. Politicians, media commentators, and citizens clamored for Churchill‘s dismissal from the University, threatening to withhold both state funds and private donations. Realizing that Churchill‘s right to express an opinion was protected by the First Amendment and that therefore they could not dismiss him for publishing what they felt to be a vile remark about innocent Americans, the University sought other reasons to dismiss Churchill. During his employment at CU, Churchill had published more and won more recognition for his scholarship, teaching, and service than, perhaps, any other member of the faculty. He had also become a controversial figure in the field of American Indian Studies— incurring both the admiration and the wrath of other Indian activists and scholars. One antagonist—John LaVelle—had complained to CU officials about some of Churchill‘s scholarly claims several years earlier, but his concerns had been dismissed as not worth pursuing. But now that the University needed to find a means to fire Churchill, it sought LaVelle‘s help in constructing a case against him for research misconduct. Several charges were lodged against Churchill for falsification and fabrication of evidence as well as plagiarism. It is obvious that the University would never have begun its investigation of Ward Churchill were it not for his ―little Eichmanns‖ comment, which he made as a citizen, not as a scholar or as a representative of the University. It is also obvious that dismissing Churchill from his position as a professor at the University violated his First Amendment rights. Most U.S. citizens will agree that what keeps America vital are the freedoms enjoyed by its citizens, foremost of which is speech. Without free speech, the U.S. is just another totalitarian state. This is why citizens must jealously guard the rights of their fellow citizens to express opinions, even opinions with which they disagree or that anger them. If Churchill is not allowed to speak freely, none of us are. In its prosecution of Churchill, the University violated many of its own rules as well as the most basic principles of academic freedom it purports to uphold. The following is from the University of Colorado‘s own highest laws: -6- Colorado Conference of the AAUP Report on the Dismissal of Ward Churchill Faculty members can meet their responsibilities only when they have confidence that their work will be judged on its merits alone. For this reason the appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure of faculty members should be based primarily on the individual's ability in teaching, research/creative work, and service and should not be influenced by such extrinsic considerations as political, social, or religious views, or views concerning departmental or university operation or administration. A disciplinary action against a faculty member, including dismissal for cause of faculty, should not be influenced by such extrinsic consideration. (Laws of the Regents V.D.2.b.) There is no doubt that Churchill‘s dismissal was influenced by an extrinsic consideration—his political views. Following are other violations of CU‘s own rules for guaranteeing Churchill a right to a fair hearing: The University convened an Investigative Committee (IC) that contained no experts in the field of American Indian Studies.