Today on Blogcritics
Home » Ward Churchill – A Menacing Plagiarist?

Ward Churchill – A Menacing Plagiarist?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Story here:

University of Colorado officials investigating embattled professor Ward Churchill received documents this week purporting to show that he plagiarized another professor’s work. Officials at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia sent CU an internal 1997 report detailing allegations about an article Churchill wrote.

“The article . . . is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism,” Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said in summarizing the report’s findings.

Churchill did not return calls to his home or office Thursday seeking comment.

Dalhousie began an investigation after professor Fay G. Cohen complained that Churchill used her research and writing in an essay without her permission and without giving her credit. Although the investigation substantiated her allegations, Cohen didn’t pursue the matter because she felt threatened by Churchill, Crosby said.

Crosby said Cohen told Dalhousie officials in 1997 that Churchill had called her in the middle of the night and said, “I’ll get you for this.”

So, let’s see. He maligns innocents who died on 9/11. He seems to hate his own country. He apparently lies about being a Native American in order to get his position at CU. He appears to have stolen someone’s artwork as his own. And now he’s being credibly accused of plagiarism.

And this clown has tenure? He’s teaching young, impressionable people from a position of authority?

What a waste of skin this guy is…

If CU doesn’t dismiss this walking, talking poster-boy for birth control, they can kiss what little credibility and status they still have goodbye…

Powered by

About RJ

  • Roland

    “So, let’s see. He maligns innocents who died on 9/11.”

    Wrong. He likened the people who “formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire” to “little Eichmanns”. They weren’t all innocent as far as he is concerned.

    “He seems to hate his own country.”

    You seem to be putting words in his mouth.

    “He apparently lies about being a Native American in order to get his position at CU.”

    You apparently aren’t sure if he lied.

    “He appears to have stolen someone’s artwork as his own.”

    Appearances can be deceiving.

    “And now he’s being credibly accused of plagiarism.”

    What makes you so sure Dalhousie’s legal council is credible?

  • http://www.tubgirl.com Eric

    Why do some many left wing morons (like Roland) willing to follow their heros right over a cliff?

  • Roland

    Eric, you hopeless cretin, you write English as stupidly as your leader speaks it.

  • http://www.yoursatellitelink.com dg

    This is very good news. The University of Colorado was about to pay alot of money to “buyout” Ward’s contract. But now with this latest relevation, negotiations have broken off. Perhaps the University of Colorado can now show a little intestinal fortitude and fire this idiot, which they should have done months ago. This will save the taxpayers of Colorado having to pay off this fraud. Also, it avoids teaching the left-leaning faculty of this country’s educational institutions; if you really don’t want to teach anymore, just make outrageous statements and then wait for intstitution to give you vast sums of money to walk away.

    An interesting fact that is coming out of all of this is Churchill’s behavior during this period. 2 or 3 weeks ago, Churchill’s attorney said something to the effect that they wouldn’t take anything less than 10 Million dollars to leave the university. But, as time goes on, and as the media has a continuing opportunity to further investigate Ward, and discover what this fraud is truely all about, rumor has it that the price has dropped to below 1/2 million. The price drops as every new relevation is brought to the light of public inspection!

    The sad thing is, all of these little leftist students who worship this guy. I guess it’s easy to preach to the rest of the world about constitutional matters when you don’t have to work for a living. Leaves lot’s of time to philosophize on how to solve the worlds problems when mommy and daddy’s hardwork at those evil corporations is paying the freight.

    Anyone that questions the fact that he ripped off artwork or plagerized hasn’t taken an honest look at the facts. But then, how often does the left take an “honest” look at the facts? An honest investigation of the facts can only lead to the conclusion that this guy is a fraud and a hoax.

    I have to laugh at the left’s feeble attempt to defend this impostor. Any defence of Churchills blantant ripoff of a piece of artwork is beyond laughable. Please see this link to see for yourself if you are being deceived:

    http://news4colorado.com/siteSearch/local_story_055200531.html

    And then, when called on the carpet for their lame defence, they respond with a personal attacks. So typical of the left…if you don’t have anything of substance, start attacking.

    Isn’t hard to drink the Kool-Aid when your head is the sand?

  • http://paskyudnyak.blogspot.com The Proprietor

    He likened the people who “formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire” to “little Eichmanns”. They weren’t all innocent as far as he is concerned.

    Mr. Churchill paints an unambiguous picture of his venom. What is the equivalence between drawing up death lists and watching open interest on option chains? What is the equivalence of ordering the Reichsbahn to get trains to Auschwitz at all costs to watching the yield curve on some boring munis? What is the equivalence of serving Heydrich, Himmler and Hitler and managing a portfolio? As far as I am concerned, Mr. Churchill is akin to a Holocaust denier, in that he mocks, denies and belittles events to suit his own nefarious agenda.

    Hopefully Mr. Churchill’s fame clock is ticking somewhere in the 14:55 range.

  • hank

    What’s extraordinary about this situation is not that Churchill is a chump- it’s becoming increasingly clear he is. No the real shame, the true degradation about Churchill is that the right so relentlously frames him as spokesman for the left, while those remaining on the sidelines of the left are unwilling to relinquish their ties to the man, until the last bloody strand of his tenure is cut.

    I could give two shakes about Ward churchill. He is certainly the type to malign the hand that feeds him. It seems most of this was about publicity, and he’s drowning in that now, most assuredly. But that right leaning politicos can shamefully press Churchill into the role of poster boy for all leftists is typical of their rumor mongering techniques that went so exccellently in the last United States election. Literally anything Bush said stuck to the cardboard Kerry. In the light of major discrepanciees concerning the President of the united States service record during the vietnam war, the best tactic the right could come up with was tell outrageous stories and hope that some of the magnificent lies would cloud the voting largesse’s communal mind. continuing along the same path, by electing Churchill as the last great Leftist- something most left leaners certainly would not bestow upon the man- as his tower crumbles beneath him, it gives the illusion the left is run by plagiarizing anti 9-11 freakos. It’s a vicious tactic, and very underhanded.

    The left doesn’t get out scot free. So many of leftists have found themselves defending Churchill from the get go, acknowledging the right’s tactic of misappropriating the quote at hand. Churchill was seeking fame, and he certainly knew by addressing the topic of 9-11 in such a way, he would stir up some sorto f fervor with the right. He baited them in a carefulyl worded speech, only it backfired. And that’s not good politics, that’s shameless sel promotion. So regardless if he turns out to be innocent of plagirarizing or stealing a painting and calling it his own, Churchill has proved he is at the heart of the matter, every bit as mercenary as the economic juggernauts who taunt him from the right.

    It’s sad that so many on the right refuse to see how close their ideals are to being completely eradicated in lessening of personal freedoms while federal laws change into rules that federal proseuctors can bend to their whim. By allowing the religious fervor that was stirred into action by the nationalistism that followed the events of 9-11, to sweep over our country, the division of church and state has become compromised, enabling a right leaning morality play to unfold on our country’s soil. Leftist people can’t combat it because as soo nass they begin their let freedom ring chant, they are bommbarded with anti american sentiments, asking if their god accpeted the deaths of 3000 innocents.

    My question herre then is this, what god gave the right to anyone to do all the killing that has resulted in his name? By forcing beliefs onto one side you basically ensure a sort of mental slavery. And where better to enable that sort of mind trap, here in the country that got rich while those of another color were forced to work the land bound in chains.

  • http://www.morethings.com/senate Al Barger

    Hank, this is true enough, “But that right leaning politicos can shamefully press Churchill into the role of poster boy for all leftists is typical of their rumor mongering techniques that went so exccellently in the last United States election.” It’s hardly fair to tar all left leaning people with this same brush.

    However, who’s fault is that? It wasn’t Dubya what forced the Democrats to sit Michael Moore up in the seat o’ honor with President Carter, or to get in bed with the MoveOn freaks. They absolutely did that to themselves. You can hardly blame the Republicans for pointing it out.

  • Mary Atkinson

    The chickens and the roosters are coming home to roost on Ward Churchill’s ugly head.

    Oh yea, Mr. Churchill, what goes around comes around.

    You spit out venom and hate and people will rise up to meet you front and center.

    You would have been a lot wiser staying anonymous with your pathological ideation.

  • Roland

    It’s amazing how your average right-wing blockhead gets its knickers in a knot over an essay, when it’s still so enamored by its lying, murdering leader in the White House. On the one hand you have a guy who tells it like it is, and on the other you’ve got a lunatic who lied to the nation about a beaten-down little country in the middle east supposedly being a serious military threat because it supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction. Thousands of innocent people have been killed (murdered) because of Bush’s blatant lies yet who does the the right want hung out to dry? None other than the dude with the pen and paper. When your priorities get that bent out of shape it’s time to have your pointy little heads examined.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I don’t know if any of the rest of you saw Ward Churchill on Bill Maher’s show, but it’s abundantly apparent now that he’s had a chance to speak his piece that he’s basically a clueless fool with a couple of loony ideas in his head and really no idea why anyone might be offended by his comments. Like a lot of people in academia he’s been in the ivory tower so long he’s totally out of touch with reality.

    Dave

  • Roland

    If you think Ward Churchill comes across as less than brilliant on television, Dave, then you must be less than impressed with the pathetic performances of the psychotic clown currently holding the position of U.S. president. Watch the Daily Show for some classic clips of Dubya making a complete ass of himself.

  • Eric Olsen

    very interesting thread and some very good points about broad brushes: clearly Churchill is not the voice of the left, but rather than simply denoucing him as a fool representative of nothing but himself as hank does, Roland makes it much easier for the right to continue to keep waving that braod brush with his a) half-hearted defense of Churchill saying “it’s only words,” as if no words are different from any other words and as if words have no meaning, and b) going apeshit over the same old tired, used up Bush-hating terrain.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I guarantee that if Bush were on Bill Maher’s show he’d be able to answer simple questions about his own activities with declarative sentences of more than one word – which is more than Churchill was able to do. Bush has been interviewed more than a few times and he always comes off as articulate and clear in his self expression, if his style is a bit bumpkinish.

    dave

  • Eric Olsen

    I watched Maher for the first time in years on Friday night and his main thrusts were, hey, that’s some amazing shit going on in the Middle East, have to give Bush some credit; and, “Michael Jackson lost me with the pajama appearance Thursday.”

    All made sense to me

  • JR

    Where Bill Maher gets weird is when he rants against the medical establishment. I’m not normally quick to defend MD’s, but Maher is an outright crackpot on health science.

    That and the gun control debate, which he invariably reduces to “gun owners have small penises”; which really means he has nothing meaningful to say on the issue.

    But I agree with him on all the “traffic reduction” issues.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    “Where Bill Maher gets weird is when he rants against the medical establishment. I’m not normally quick to defend MD’s, but Maher is an outright crackpot on health science.”

    Having been under the care of several physicians in the last ten years I can attest to the fact that many in the medical community are just as concerned about our health system. I’ve seen three doctors walk completely away from the medical profession because they felt they could not practice that which they were trained to do.

    “That and the gun control debate, which he invariably reduces to “gun owners have small penises”; which really means he has nothing meaningful to say on the issue.”

    I’d love a study performed to see if Maher’s assertion is true. I’ll bet that 80% of the wives/partners of these people would proclaim their total dissatisfaction with sexual performance.

  • Chuck Anesi

    Roland,

    1. Churchill has produced no credible evidence whatsoever to prove any degree of Indian blood. He is not associated with any tribe. DNA tests are available that could support his claim, but obviously he has not and will not take one. He has been denounced by AIM and other Indian organizations.

    2. There is no doubt whatsoever that Churchill copied the orginal artwork of Thomas Mills and presented it as his own. Take a look at http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

    3. There is also no doubt about his plagiarism of Cohen’s work. CU legal counsel agrees it was plagiarism.

    4. Churchill has also lied about his army record, claiming to have been a special forces paratrooper when he was, in fact, a truck driver.

    For all I care Churchill can say whatever he likes about the U.S. and 9/11 victims, but his name-calling — and that is all it is, there is nothing of substance in anything he says — is hardly what one would expect from someone pretending to be a scholar.

  • SFC SKI

    I really don’t wantt to add to what should be another thread, but what would Maher’s assertion mean in relation to female gun owners? For that matter, Maher’s aspersions surely relate to the supposed machismo of white male (therefore straight redneck)gunowners, what is his take on gays who own guns?

    Eric, great point, if Roland and his ilk are so anti-Bush that they feel compelled to defend someone like Churchill, is it any won der they gain little traction with so many middle of the road folks? Why can’t Roland say that Churchill is obviously not representative of whatever Roland subscribes to, unless that is not the case. The bigggest problem with party politics is the “in for a penny, in for a pound” mentality. Blues and Reds alike are guilty of this therefore more of us need to break the party line, but it sure is hard when one side is obviously playing catch-up to the other. Until the Dems can distance themselves from the freakshow of the fringes they have, and show me they stand for something andd have a plan to bring it about, as opposed to merely standing against the GOP, but have a realistic and viable plan to address the problems we face, moderates like me are going to have to vote red.

  • Roland

    Chuck Anesi,

    “For all I care Churchill can say whatever he likes about the U.S. and 9/11 victims,…”

    Bullshit, Chuck. You couldn’t bring yourself to talk about the essay.

    Here’s another dubious point you can add to your list.

    5. In all probability Churchill doesn’t change his socks daily.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I’d like to see Maher stuck with a panel of truly articulate people from the left or right and see how he holds up. He pads his panels with flashy entertainment idiots like Robin Williams so he doesn’t have to deal with any challenging discussion. It’s all about making him look good by comparison.

    Dave

  • Roland

    SFC SKI,

    Grow up. What difference would it make if you vote Dem or red. Innocent children, women and men in the middle east, and who knows where else, are going to be murdered and maimed because of U.S. foreign policy.
    Whatever his faults at least Ward Churchill, unlike Bush and Clinton, etc., doesn’t have the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands.

  • SFC Ski

    Ward Churchill incited other to violence, albeit unsuccessfully. Sure, he nay not pull the trigger, but he has no trouble with triggers being pulled.

    So what’s your take on all the innocents of Iraq killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime?

  • Roland

    SFC Ski

    “Ward Churchill incited other to violence,..”

    So you’re into fiction, what’s new?

    “So what’s your take on all the innocents of Iraq killed by Saddam Hussein’s regime?”

    Just a dead as all the innocents of Iraq and elsewhere killed by past and present occupants of the White House.

  • SFC Ski

    Churchill’s statements are well documented and easily found, do your own research, if you have the guts to bother defending someone like Churchill. Sure, he’s got the right to freedom of speech, but you seem to be sticking up for what he says and who he says it to, and why. Can’t you find a better champion?

  • Shark

    We’ll claim ownership of Churchill if yall claim ownership of Grover Norquist, Bush’s friend and informal advisor who compared taxes to the Holocaust.

    BONUS: We’ll even throw in…

    Rod Paige, Education Secretary – “The NEA is a terrorist organization”

    Sentator Rick Santorum — “I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”

    And the Right-Wing’s version of Ward Churchill (if he looked like an albino stallion in drag), Ann Coulter — “To The People Of Islam: Just think: If we’d invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU’D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW! ”

    PS: RJ,

    1) marginalized, garrulous idiots show up on both sides of the aisle with equal frequency;
    2) two can play this game… but you knew that, right?

    xxoo
    Shark

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    The NEA IS a terrorist organization!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Well, the NEA does hold our children hostage to further their political agenda.

    Dave

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    I’m not a big fan of the teacher’s union, but a terrorist organization? Come on! They don’t hold any kids hostage that we don’t send to them voluntarily day after day.

    For once, Shark’s right: there is plenty of inflammatory rhetoric on all sides of the political arena.

  • Roland

    SFC Ski

    I have no problem with the gist of Churchill’s essay. The title alone “Some People Push Back” On the Justice of Roosting Chickens – just about says it all re the foreign backlash against U.S. foreign policy.

    Are you so stupid that you can’t understand why millions of foreigners are sickened and angered by the brutality of U.S. military/corporate “enterprises”?

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    There’s a whole thread about the way debate is derailed and ideas are marginalized by name-calling, particularly with “Nazi” and its derivatives (which “litle Eichmans” certainly is).

    Roland, you might want to check it out before you take issue with the “Ski”.

  • SFC Ski

    Shark, my point was not about claiming nutcases on either side of the aisle, it was about disavowing them.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>I’m not a big fan of the teacher’s union, but a terrorist organization? Come on! They don’t hold any kids hostage that we don’t send to them voluntarily day after day.<< Where do you live? Where I live if you don’t send your kids to school for 3 days in a row a uniformed constable shows up at your door to serve a summons and have you dragged into court with the full coercive force of the government and legal system behind him. Dave

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    You should consider sending them to school Dave and that wouldn’t happen to you. Just a thought.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Good point, Scott. Hasn’t happened to me. It happened to a homeschooling family down the street before they got some paperwork with the state sorted out. My kids go to private school, just like the kids of more than half of the teachers and administrators in our local school district.

    Dave

  • Darren M

    Hmm.. let’s take a step back from all this for a bit..

    “Terrorists” attack the WTC and kill lots of folks.

    What was their motive ? All complex actions must have a motive, unless you want to claim that everyone who had a hand in the 9/11 attacks was criminally insane (legal meaning, not just common use of ‘crazy’ .) The attackers and their groups let it be known, they don’t try to hide it. It’s because of US foriegn policy that hinders real power gain and growth in other countries. It’s because we have a government that pulls political coups in countries to set up more “agreeable” leadership. Basically the US waltzes around the world, doing it’s best to ensure it stays on top and no others rise to challenge it’s power (that’s part of it’s job, to ensure it’s longevity.) The problem is that this is, at a basic level, “unfair”. Try to remember back to when you were a young child and got your first lesson of “the world is not fair”. Can you remember that feeling? Imagine that feeling everyday of your life. This sort of policy and actions fuels the intense hatred for the US. Of course it’s part of the human condition to want to beat the “top dog”, everyone roots for the underdog. But the motives that inspire such drastic actions as kamikaze flights into the WTC come from years and years of politcal oppression. I’m not sure how many of the regulars to this site have Arab friends in the middle east or have lived there (Israel excluded), but if you talk to enough of them you will start to understand
    why they despise the government of the US. They despise the people for supporting the government.
    What Churchill said about the victims of 9/11 as not being truely innocent apply to everyone who votes for the government officials and those who do not take action to get their government to “act justly”. He is speaking from (IMO) a viewpoint of ultimate righteousness. I personally do not believe mankind is capable of such. He is writing to stir your soul, to strike a blow at your conscious that activates you to, if nothing else, post inflamatory remarks to each other on blogs and forums. At least he is making people think about it. How many of you (mostly on the anti-churchill side) every considered what US foreign policy does to the lives of people in other countries ? Have you actually investigated and found what they have to say about it ? Do you think the 9/11 attackers grew up in a world and society where the US was just “there” and they taught themselves to hate us ?
    So, for all of those burning Churchill on a cross, chill out for a moment and reflect on the meaning of true freedom, and hopefully you will realise that while your government let’s you enjoy a more or less comfortable life, they are doing so at the expense of others around the world. Your “inaction” is the reason they don’t like You, it is the reason that the victims of 9/11, in Churchill’s view, were not really innocent. If everyone looked out for everyone else, everyone would be totally taken care of. As it stands most of us are only looking out for ourselves and our own.
    This sort of attitude on a global scale will not win us trust or friendship, it will only breed hatred, greed and envy.
    Do not blame the one who stirs your soul and/or mind (good or bad), for without them, we are nothing but mindless drones. If you feel the need to lash out against someone or something after reading what they have to say, first try to understand what about it makes you so upset. Often you’ll find that you have taken it personally, or associate it with something else you’ve taken that way, hence your anger. Do not blame the messenger, blame the one(s) who crafted the message.

  • JR

    Phillip Winn: I’m not a big fan of the teacher’s union, but a terrorist organization? Come on! They don’t hold any kids hostage that we don’t send to them voluntarily day after day.

    Dave Nalle: Where do you live? Where I live if you don’t send your kids to school for 3 days in a row a uniformed constable shows up at your door to serve a summons and have you dragged into court with the full coercive force of the government and legal system behind him.

    Where do you live? Where I live terrorists don’t serve a summons or even think about dragging you into any kind of court, they fly airplanes into buildings and murder people indiscriminately.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    I live in Texas, and I homeschool. Regardless, the NEA is a lot of things, but it is hardly a terrorist organization, and to claim otherwise so cheapens the discourse that I’m outta heah.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Might I point out that I’m not the one who called the NEA a terrorist organization. That was Andy Marsh.

    I’m the one who said they held kids hostage to further their political agenda.

    Dave