Talk:Ward Churchill
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Perhaps he could also sue the irritating dog in the adverts as well. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
How in the fuck[edit]
...does this not say anything about the man lying about his supposed Native American heritage? WF Lizardbrain (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to know the exact same thing. Maybe because that's what the dreaded conservatives would want? 74.8.88.191 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I had heard something about that years ago.
But no, he wasn't obscure before the Little Eichmans comment. I was aware of him and "A Little Question of Genocide" at least twelve years ago, and I don't live in America.-Albannach (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This guy is a nutjob[edit]
Despite the fact that he was basically hit with a manufactoversy shitstorm over the "little Eichmanns" comment, this guy really did engage in very questionable scholarship and other nuttery, like inventing fake Native American heritage and then, when called out on it, attacking the system of tribal membership itself instead of just admitting he was mistaken. I already added some info about the outcomes of the legal proceedings where he tried to weasel his way back into CU, and I'll work on putting in something about the "blood quantum" nonsense later. Siafu (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think he's already known to be a big hack. Most of his writings are cribbed from far smarter, and articulate experts in North American Indian history. I also think someone who edits here was his student once. --Revolverman (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- One of my genocide professors showed us his book and displayed it as a how not to write history: no primary sources, sketchy numbers and references, and a tone that claimed absolute certainty without evidence. He's the worst kind of pseudo-historian. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was never his student, and I don't like him. I was the editor who put up the information about him bullying a grad student in a different department, and I was also the editor who put up the information about his failure to be congenial towards potential Jewish anti-genocide-denial allies. BUT part of our mission is to report on the whole truth, and that means recognizing that the guy shouldn't have been fired for falsified reasons (he should've been fired for his conduct instead). I can't see how taking a pro-academic freedom stance is off-mission for an officially anti-authoritarian wiki. Rand0 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
"The president of the CU system at the time was former Senator Hank Brown ...[edit]
...who had no prior experience in education aside from also being the president of the University of Northern Colorado." This could be better-phrased. As it's put now, it's saying he had no experience, and then telling us he had previously held a pretty important and relevant position. Also, it risks overselling the role of university president -- rectors, deans, and the board have a substantial amount of say in these sorts of affairs. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's explaining that he only gets positions as University president. He never gets a position as a university professor, a university bureaucrat, etc. It implies he is made University president for political reasons and not because he actually knew anything about education before his career of wandering University president. Rand0 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- More importantly, it still frames University power structures as some sort of dictatorship. Deans, provosts, and especially the trustees/governors wield a considerable amount of power. To explain what happened to Churchill in terms of the politics of one guy misses a lot. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- There wasn't a provost at the University of Colorado until 2007, after Churchill was witch-hunted and fired. A lot of people believe that he was put there in order to create another layer of bureaucracy in order to act as an obstacle to student power, whereas NOBODY believes he was put there as an obstacle to the president's power. As far as deans go, some of them are really great, but they are all subjugated to the almighty will of the president, whether that be Hank Brown then or his immediate successor Bruce Benson now. Benson, btw, is an oil baron and also not an educator- he is another political appointee. Oh, and Benson may not be a dictator per se, but he thinks and acts like he is one. You should have heard his December 2012 commencement speech, in which he told all the graduates "You are small" blah blah blah [cogs in my capitalist machine] blah blah blah. Now, the only other groups of people with any real power at CU are the chancellor and the regents. Now the chancellors have mostly been people with experience in education and are not as often political appointees (though at least one guy, the current one, Phil DiStefano, is both). The regents are largely politically motivated. Five of them are so far to the right that they flirted with the idea of privatizing CU Boulder just a few years ago. Rand0 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- More importantly, it still frames University power structures as some sort of dictatorship. Deans, provosts, and especially the trustees/governors wield a considerable amount of power. To explain what happened to Churchill in terms of the politics of one guy misses a lot. TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Plagiarism[edit]
He was terminated for plagiarism. The Investigative Committee agreed unanimously that he was guilty. Why is it presented like a false flag conspiracy here? He certainly gained national notice for his antics which made people look into what he did outside of an obscure corner of the world. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because his case is an opportunity to take potshots at the Republican Party, no matter, if it is done based on facts or bullshit?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
That time Ward gave a speech at my small, Christian college[edit]
Before Churchill came to the small amount of national infamy he's achieved, he came and gave a lecture at the small Associate Reform Presbyterian college, Erskine, where i went to undergrad, in 2003 I think. One of the student requirements was to attend so many lectures and other academic/cultural events every Tues. and Thurs. (Tuesdays were Christian theology and Thursdays were secular). One Thursday in the Fall, Ward came and gave a lecture; about 10 minutes into his usual speil on Native oppression (which I totally agree with, despite this one awful messenger) he gets to sports team names. To paraphrase, he says "How would you like it if we had the Kansas City Kikes, the Washington Wops, the Wisconsin Wetbacks and the... NEW YORK NIGGERS! Oh, and one more thing, the word "squaw" means CUNT!" Well, the president of the school (who is also the head of the ARP church) was sitting in the front row, got up immediately and walked out and about 3 minutes later a terrified freshmen comes out and very politely informs Ward that his speech is over. A lot of home schoolers (Erskine attracts them because it's remote, small and Christian (not Bob Jonesesque though)) had their minds blown that day. Petey Plane (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)