The report that criticizes University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s scholarship also calls into question the university’s handling of the Churchill scandal.
“The Investigative Committee notes its concerns regarding the timing and, perhaps, the motives for the University’s decision to initiate these charges at this time,” notes the opening paragraph of the 125-page report.
The Investigative Committee, which found that Churchill fabricated historical data and plagiarized the work of others, questioned whether the university chose to pursue the allegations only after an outcry over Churchill’s controversial statements regarding the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“At least one other claim was brought to the attention of responsible University officials a decade ago, but the University, after preliminary investigation, decided to take no further action,” the report said. “Thus, the Committee is troubled by the origins of, and skeptical concerning the motives for, the current investigation.”
The report also criticizes the decision to hire Churchill – who had no doctorate or previous faculty experience – with tenure and without a probationary period. That decision was “extraordinary” and brought on by the desire for the “favorable attention his notoriety and following were expected to bring,” the report said.
CU-Boulder spokesman Barrie Hartman dismissed the criticism of the university, saying Churchill brought on greater scrutiny with his statements comparing some 9/11 victims to a Nazi official.
“The uproar caused people burned by Churchill and his plagiarism to challenge his scholarship,” Hartman said, adding that he does not know what happened with the complaint 10 years ago.
CU-system Faculty Council chairman Rod Muth said CU is not innocent in the situation.
“Obviously, the university bears some responsibility in this regard,” he said. “Should we start beating our backs and whipping ourselves into a frenzy? No.”
Lamar University professor Thomas Brown, a Churchill critic who supplied the committee with information on the ethnic- studies professor, said the issue came to light in an unfortunate way but was necessary.
“I don’t think anything would have happened without a political witch hunt,” he added. “But this witch hunt found a witch.”
David Longanecker, executive director of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, said the university system sometimes has trouble finding misconduct.
“That’s part of the nature of academe,” he said. “It’s a self-policing environment, and with that come strengths and substantial weaknesses.”
State Sen. Shawn Mitchell, a Broomfield Republican who is one of Churchill’s political critics, said the process worked.
“If we forced the scrutiny of a charlatan, it’s a good thing,” Mitchell said.
Churchill and his attorney David Lane did not return calls seeking comment.
Staff writers Jennifer Brown and John Ingold contributed to this report.
Staff writer Arthur Kane can be reached at 303-820-1626 or akane@denverpost.com.
The allegations
The investigative committee looked into seven allegations:
Allegation A: John P. LaVelle, a law professor at the University of New Mexico Law School, alleged that Churchill created a “hoax” by misrepresenting a 1887 law known as the Dawes Act in order to say that it imposed a “eugenics code” on Indian tribes, requiring a person to have a certain amount of Indian blood to get a land allotment.
Finding: That there were “gross historical inaccuracies” in Churchill’s work, but not a “hoax.” However, Churchill falsified evidence because he cited the Dawes Act and a book, both of which contradict his claims. Churchill also cited two essays as independent sources for his claims but later admitted that he had actually written those essays. This is “evidentiary fabrication and failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.”
Allegation B: LaVelle also complained that Churchill misrepresented the Indian Arts and Craft Act by saying that the act made it a crime for anyone not federally recognized as Native American to sell goods described as Indian produced. Churchill wrote that the law required “one-quarter” Indian blood or being enrolled in a federally sanctioned tribe.
Finding: Churchill “seriously and deliberately misrepresented” the act by saying there was a blood requirement. He compounded that error by using sources that he said were independent but were really written by him.
Allegation C: Focuses on a 2003 Churchill essay that argues Europeans intentionally introduced smallpox to Native Americans as “genocide.”
Finding: Churchill misrepresented his sources and fabricated his account because no evidence exists to support his claims.
Allegation D: Churchill alleged that the U.S. Army deliberately spread smallpox to Indians living near Fort Clark, located in what is now North Dakota. He contended that the Army purposely distributed smallpox-infected blankets, didn’t administer a vaccine and sent the infected Indians back to their families.
Finding: There’s evidence that Native American oral traditions provide some basis for Churchill’s work but that he did not mention the native sources in his scholarship. He began mentioning native sources as an “after-the-fact justification for his claims.” Churchill also “has created myths under the banner of academic scholarship” by citing various details of where the smallpox blankets came from and what happened afterward.
Allegation E: Churchill allegedly plagiarized the work of a Canadian environmental organization, Dam the Dams, in various writings between 1989 and 2002.
Finding: He plagiarized the work. The committee found “the misconduct was not accidental, but deliberate.”
Allegation F: Churchill plagiarized work by professor Rebecca Robbins in various works of his own.
Finding: Churchill did not plagiarize the work, because he was the author. But using Robbins’ name on his work was research misconduct.
Allegation G: Churchill plagiarized the work of Dalhousie University professor Fay G. Cohen in various works he edited.
Finding: If it was not plagiarism, he misappropriated Cohen’s work without giving the author credit. That is research misconduct.
Definitions
Plagiarism is representing others’ work as one’s own.
Fabrication is making up facts.
Falsification includes citing sources for a claim when in fact the sources contradict the claim.
