Ward Churchill and academic freedom

The Colorado University professor who purportedly dismissed some of the World Trade Center victims of 9/11 as “little Eichmanns” and then got a huge amount of attention and publicity has been found guilty of many academic violations:

falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, failure to comply with established standard regarding author names on publications, and a “serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research.” The committee also found that Churchill “was disrespectful of Indian oral traditions” in his writings about an 1837 smallpox epidemic.

The university committe was unanimous in its findings but not in its recommendations: one voted to dismiss him, four to suspend him. The committee found many parties to blame:

Some critics of the university from the right have said that Churchill never should have been hired and some critics from the left have noted that Churchill never attempted to hide the views that eventually led to so much scrutiny. The committee, in a nod to both sets of critics, wrote: “We point out finally that when Professor Churchill was hired as an associate professor with tenure in 1991 and promoted to (full) professor in 1997, the university knew that he did not have a Ph.D. or law degree, as commonly expected for faculty at this institution, and was aware that he was a controversial public intellectual.”

I find this entire episode deeply troubling. Churchill’s views are repellent, but he was operating under the authority of the university—with impunity—until the university itself was enveloped in a cloud of suspicion. It is the university that bears the entire responsibility for this episode, not Churchill. He should never have been hired (judging by his “credits”), and the university is making him pay for their grievous errors.

Particularly suspicious is the charge that Churchil was “disrespectful of Indian oral traditions.” What kind of politically correct bullshit is that? What kind of investigation was this?
I am entirely in agreement with this comment from the Inside Higher Ed piece linked above:

If Your Witch Hunt Bags a Witch, It’s Still a Witch Hunt

It’s not easy to defend Ward Churchill, so I don’t intend to. If he leaves Colorado, it will be no loss to the academy. He’s an embarrassment. But make no mistake: to the culture warriors on the right, Ward Churchill was simply the appetizer, the low hanging fruit that gets plucked first.

Now they’ve set a precedent. On the basis of stupid and offensive, but constitutionally protected, remarks, they were able to browbeat the University of Colorado into doing an unprecedented, exhaustive review of Churchill’s entire career. And they hit paydirt. Anyone who thinks they will stop now simply hasn’t been paying attention. This was never about Ward Churchill.

How many people could they destroy through this kind of politically-motivated investigation? Who knows? Very few people are so squeaky clean that they could survive such an inquisition unscathed. Missed a footnote? Had an affair? Used the office computer to update your fantasy baseball team? Taken home a few pens? Sent an email that could somehow be deemed inappropriate. Let the fun begin! [emphasis added]

It will never get that far, you say? Maybe you’re right. But I know that the next left winger who wants to say something controversial will think twice. And then think again. For some of you on this comment thread, I’m sure that would be a delightful result. Your only interest in the academy is in its destruction, or at least the destruction of its intellectual independence. But for the rest of you, leave aside your feelings about Chruchill for a moment and understand this for what it is and for what it portends for academic freedom.

Unapologetically Tenured, at 7:25 pm EDT on May 16, 2006