An Indian geologist at the top of his field is accused by another scientist of buying fossils at flea markets and pretending he discovered them in the Himalayas, throwing into question the age of life in the Nepalese mountains.
A South Korean scientist is charged with fraud after a colleague uncovers faked stem-cell research.
And a history professor at Emory University in Atlanta resigns on fabrication charges after scholars challenge his book, applauded by gun-control advocates because it claimed few early Americans owned firearms.
In the competitive world of academic inquiry, faculty researchers typically rally to kick bad scholarship out of their discipline, experts in academic misconduct said last week.
Some predicted that the work of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, who was found by a faculty committee to have plagiarized, fabricated and falsified material, could fade to footnotes in publications about academic misconduct.
“It’s kind of a natural correction,” said Peter Hoffer, a University of Georgia history professor who has written a book on fraud. “As long as we have free inquiry, then the good scholarship will drive out the bad.”
Others, meanwhile, criticize the review conducted by the committee, saying CU was looking for an excuse to fire Churchill for his radical views.
Among Churchill’s assertions is that EuroAmericans and the U.S. government intentionally introduced smallpox to American Indians, including giving them infected blankets near Fort Clark along the Missouri River.
Churchill cited other writers, but those sources were falsified because they did not back his claims, the committee investigating his work found.
Churchill’s attorney, David Lane, said CU is retaliating against Churchill because of his essay comparing some Sept. 11, 2001, victims to a Nazi. He said he is likely to file a federal lawsuit against the university if administrators fire or suspend Churchill.
Lane disputes that Churchill committed misconduct, saying the professor’s historical interpretation is simply different from the committee’s version.
“Right-wing witch hunt”
Churchill has other defenders as well. For instance, John K. Wilson, an author and founder of a website on academic freedom, accused the committee of “stretching the meaning of research misconduct far beyond its true definition.”
“The Colorado committee is opening the door to a vast new right-wing witch hunt on college campuses that conservatives could easily exploit across the country,” he wrote in an essay posted on insidehighered.com.
Churchill has not responded to requests for comment.
Historical sociologist Thomas Brown of Lamar University is among those leading the charge to debunk Churchill’s work.
The committee found “gross historical inaccuracies” in Churchill’s interpretation of an 1887 law known as the Dawes Act, which Churchill said imposed a “eugenics code” on Indians by requiring a certain amount of Indian blood to get land. Churchill’s cited sources contradicted his blood quantum claim, the committee said.
The misinterpretation has perpetuated because other writers have cited Churchill, Brown said. He predicted “a host of people” who read polemic American Indian literature will continue to cite Churchill “just because they like the sound of what he is saying.”
Brown said he is less concerned about Churchill’s assertion that the government purposefully spread smallpox to Indians because those rumors already existed.
The American Association of University Professors expects faculty members who have plagiarized or fabricated to retract their work. “The clearest and the cleanest thing is if the author simply apologizes and says, ‘This is what I did wrong,”‘ said Martin Snyder, the AAUP’s director of external relations.
Still, Snyder and others said, books and journals based on erroneous material sometimes sit on shelves for years. It often falls on fellow scholars in the discipline – not the author or publisher – to correct work they believe is inaccurate, they said.
“It is kind of a marketplace of ideas where good ideas will drive out the bad ideas,” he said. “It should stimulate scholars – not only for their disciplines but for larger scholarly reasons – to set the record right.”
Bloggers take on case
Scholars already have begun to stir, posting comments on Internet blogs about the seriousness of the Churchill case, said John Lesko, a Saginaw Valley State University linguistics professor and editor of a journal called “Plagiary.”
“You can’t deny there are political aspects to this case here, but when you have such egregious offenses, you have to open your eyes and take a stand against this,” Lesko said. “That’s all part of the nature of the debate and the dialogue within academic scholarly communities.”
Although several academics have questioned the origin of the Churchill investigation, others praised the committee’s thoroughness.
Snyder said he hoped people would see past the politics and digest the gravity of the 124-page findings.
“The reaction that people should have is that despite all the hoopla, the system works pretty well,” Snyder said. “The people in the profession have the guts and the intelligence and the systems in place to deal with it.”
Staff writer Jennifer Brown can be reached at 303-820-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com.
