Ward Churchill Solidarity Network

MLA Condemns CU for Retaliation against Ward Churchill

At its annual meeting, the Modern Language Association passed this resolution:

RESOLUTION TO CONDEMN UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
FOR ITS RETALIATION AGAINST WARD CHURCHILL

Whereas, upon criticism of Professor Ward Churchill for his remarks concerning the 9/11 attacks, the University of Colorado initiated proceedings against him, and whereas such acts of retribution threaten free expression in the university setting, particularly against those in historically marginalized disciplines,

Be it resolved that the Modern Language Association condemns this action of the President and Regents of the University of Colorado.

Mumia Abu-Jamal II

Scholar-activist Ward Churchill has just been handed the academic equivalent of a death sentence, when the Board of Regents  of the University of Colorado voted to remove him from his professorial post.

Churchill has been the target of the rabid right since he published an essay shortly after 9/11, which likened Americans in their attitudes to Nazis.

From that point forward, academics at the University began sharpening their pencils to find the way to separate Churchill from his tenured position.

Indeed, his works, many of which are anti-imperialist in nature, has also made him an enemy of the right-wing nationalists and fascists in the corporate media.

Churchill has written strong, uncompromising books on U.S. history and social, political movements, like the Black freedom movement, and the Native American independence and rights movement.

His book, A Little Matter of Genocide, is a tour-de-force of American and British atrocities against Native people.  It is so searing, so honest, that it is difficult and painful to read.

As for his post 9/11 essay, “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens”, Churchill sought to engage the question posed by millions in the aftermath of the burning towers “Why do they hate us?”

It may sound rhetorical to compare Americans to ‘little Eichmanns’, but before World War II, Nazi and Fascist support groups were flourishing in America.

Nazi sympathizers filled Madison Square Garden for the U.S. - Nazi support group, the German-American Bund.  Fascist groups were electing councilmen and mayors.  They were feted by congressmen.  Perhaps the only group with more clout was the Klan.

Plus, where do you think the Nazis learned much of their racially exclusive theories, and of concentration camps, but from the U.S.?  That fact is documented.

The inspiration for Nazi and South African racial apartheid came from the U.S. segregation system, and so-called ‘reservations’ for Indian people.

This may prove somewhat unpopular for Americans to hear, but it is the truth.

Ward Churchill is precisely the kind of scholar that Americans need to read and hear, especially in this hour  of national and global crisis.  He is a brave and brilliant man who has slain more than his share of sacred cows.

As America engages in a global war based on lies, they need him now — more than ever.

Dare to read his books.

Click here to listen to the full August 5, 2007 edition of Prison Radio’s “Live From Death Row”.

ACLU to Regents: Don’t Fire Ward Churchill

The Executive Directors of the National ACLU and the ACLU of Colorado write:

To the members of the University of Colorado Board of Regents:

Later this month, the Board of Regents will meet to consider a recommendation, made by University of Colorado President Hank Brown, that Professor Ward Churchill’s employment be terminated.

We write on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union—an organization long dedicated to preserving the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom—to urge you to reject this recommendation.

The investigation of Professor Churchill’s scholarship is the result of widespread publicity in early 2005 about certain unpopular views Professor Churchill expressed several years earlier in an essay about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Prominent public officials, including members of the legislature and the then-Governor of Colorado, quickly called for Professor Churchill’s termination. The Board of Regents called an emergency meeting, at which the Chancellor announced his plan for an immediate investigation of all of Professor Churchill’s writing and speeches to determine whether they provided any grounds for dismissal.

It is undisputed, however, that Professor Churchill’s views are protected by the First Amendment and cannot serve as a legal basis for any adverse employment action. Nevertheless, the University soon launched the investigation of Professor Churchill’s scholarship in an effort to find more defensible grounds for sanctioning him.

The investigative committee found six charges of research misconduct to be sustained. The Appeals Panel of the Privilege and Tenure Committee concluded that only three of those were valid. Only one member of the five-member investigative committee believed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction, and a majority of the appeals panel concluded that termination was not warranted. Despite these conclusions, the University President has recommended termination, thus urging the same result as the elected officials who publicly called for Professor Churchill’s termination in 2005. The current Governor of Colorado has now added his voice to those clamoring for Professor Churchill to be fired.

We believe the poisoned atmosphere in which this investigation was launched, and the circumstances under which it was initiated, have irretrievably tainted the process. The investigation of Professor Churchill’s scholarship cannot be separated from the indefensible lynch-mob furor that generated the initial calls for his termination. Firing Professor Churchill in these circumstances does not send a message about academic rigor and standards of professional integrity. On the contrary, it sends a warning to the academic community that politically unpopular dissenters speak out at their peril.

Accepting President Brown’s recommendation in these circumstances poses too great a risk that other members of the academic community will respond by choosing to silence themselves or temper the public expression of their views out of fear that they, too, will be subjected to detailed fishing expeditions and censure. Such a result not only undermines academic freedom, it also diminishes the range and breadth of public debate that is vital to a flourishing democracy. We urge you to reject President Brown’s recommendation.

Sincerely,
Anthony Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

Cathryn Hazouri
Executive Director
ACLU of Colorado

Law Professor Derrick Bell, a Founder of Critical Race Theory, Writes:

Dear University of Colorado Regents:

From the start, I have been a staunch defender of Professor Ward Churchill’s constitutionally protected right to speak and have urged University of Colorado officials to dismiss the charges against him. I continue to hold to this position despite the University President Hank Brown’s recommendation to you that Professor Churchill be dismissed. I can imagine the tremendous political and perhaps financial pressures being exerted to get rid of Churchill, but such action will have precisely the opposite effect. I urge you to listen to the lawyers who know the law and not to those motivated by unthinking retaliation and perceived political advantage.

Even a conservative court will find it difficult to ignore that the charges brought against Churchill because of alleged academic failings are spurious and an all too obvious pretext for quite severe punishment because of statements about the 9/11 attacks made out of context to the lengthy study out of which they were made. And whatever the district court’s decision, this case will likely be taken on appeal, perhaps as far as the U.S. Supreme Court. At every step, views will be divided as to whether the University or Churchill are in the right. The controversy will cost you students and faculty that you really want to have. In a competitive market for both the best students and faculty, is this a risk you want to take in order to satisfy the political benefits of dismissing Churchill?

I have been on the faculties of Harvard and NYU for 36 years and was dean of the University of Oregon for five years. I can tell you that dismissals for any cause can shake the confidence of faculty for whom tenure reflects a much desired security for which they have worked for many years. This includes those who supported his dismissal and those who remained silent. You should solicit the views of academic deans about the negative outcome of the University’s governing body dismissing a tenured professor whose published views outraged a substantial number of people.

As I indicated at the outset, I am a supporter of Ward Churchill. His academic output speaks for itself as does the range of students who loved his classes, gained from his writings, and support his retention. And yet here, I call on my long years as a faculty member and a law school dean. The relationship between a university and its tenured faculty is a sensitive one easily bruised by actions that even when they are seen as appropriate, are unsettling and destructive of the calm and order that are the necessary foundations for quality research and writing and effective teaching.

I predict that dismissing the charges against Professor Churchill will cause howls of protest from those outside the University, but will bring quiet sighs of relief from those faculty whose careers and lives are founded on peace and order so necessary to live the life of the mind.

Sincerely,

Derrick Bell
Visiting Professor,
University of New York
School of Law.

CU Regents Receive Hundreds of Letters from Around the World … Michael Meeropol Weighs In:

TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO:

I am a lifelong academic. . . .

Though I am a member of a dissident minority within the Economics Profession, I have hesitated to voice my support for Professor Ward Churchill as his case was being adjudicated. I would have been very quick to condemn a politically motivated firing had it occurred because someone made a speech or delivered a controversial lecture. However, these charges were (I thought) substantive and went to the heart of our profession’s integrity – relating to intellectual honesty.

I have been moved, however, to finally raise my voice in protest after reading the detailed analysis by Professor Tom Mayer of the University’s Sociology Department. To be frank and blunt, the charges against Professor Churchill are bogus and represent a fig-leaf of cover for a politically motivated firing. . . .

What will happen as a result of Professor Churchill’s dismissal will be an increasing uniformity among faculty – with particularly young faculty afraid to truly practice their profession – afraid to truly speak (and write) what is in their hearts and minds. The losers will be your students but in a very real sense, the narrowing of the acceptable scope of dialogue within your university (and others as well – chilled by your behavior) will mean a loss for a nation as a whole. . . .

The republic has much to lose should such voices be silenced.

I urge you sincerely to vote NOT to terminate Professor Churchill. . . .

Sincerely,
Michael A. Meeropol, Ph D
Chair, Department of Economics
Western New England College
Springfield, Massachusetts

Michael and Robert Meeropol are co-authors of We Are Your Sons: The Legacy of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg

click here to read entire letter.

Write the CU Regents: c/o Millie.Cortez@cu.edu

Richard Falk

To the Regents of the University of Colorado:

I write as a concerned member of the university faculty community, having taught for six yeas at Ohio State University, forty years at Princeton University, and the last six years as a visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. I also write as someone who has known Ward Churchill for more than ten years, and had the opportunity to work with him in several professional settings. My message is a fervent request that you reject the recommended dismissal of Professor Churchill, and either reinstate the majority recommendation of the CU faculty appeal panel for a one-year suspension, or more appropriately, decide on the dismissal of charges against Churchill. From the outset of this controversy I have been apalled by the rush to judgment that has characterized this case, and have taken a public stand that any effort to dismiss Professor Churchill from the University of Colorado represents a flagrant denial of academic freedom that would have severe adverse consequence for learning communities across the country.

Having examing the reports and evidence I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that there exists no basis, aside from bias and outside political pressure, for the dismissal of Professor Churchill on grounds of ‘research misconduct.’ The alleged wrongs over a long, productive scholarly career have not been established to nearly the degree that should warrant disciplinary action, much less dismissal from a tenured position. However the alleged infractions of research standards is evaluated the issues reduce to matters of interpretation,
accident, and some instances of carelessness that is to be expected to be present to some degree in the scholarly work of almost every senior professor.

I regard Professor Churchill’s scholarly work as having made major contributions in ethnic studies and with respect to Native Americans. This assessment is reinforced by Churchill’s worldwide reputation, as well as by the high regard with which he is held by students.

Against this background, I would respectfully request the Board of Regents to consider these charges against Professor Churchill in an objective manner, and to take into account not only issues of fairness in relation to this individual whose future is on the line, but with respect to the sort of university atmosphere that you would like to encourage at the Univerisity of Colorado. Naturally, this case is a challenge, but it is also an opportunity to adhere to principles of justice and to show support for academic freedom when it really matters, that is, when it is under attack due to political and ideological pressures mounted from outside the university.

Sincerely,

Richard Falk
Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Emeritus, Princeton University (since 2002) Visiting Distinguished Professor, Global Studies, University of California at Santa Barbra

University of Denver AAUP

2 May 2007
The Honorable Hank Brown
President, University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado

Dear President Brown:

The University of Denver chapter of the American Association of University Professors has reviewed various documents pertaining to the case of Professor Ward Churchill, including the “Report of the Investigative Committee on Research Misconduct at CU-Boulder Concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill” (May 9, 2006), and the CU-Boulder AAUP chapter’s “Statement Regarding The Investigation and Recommended Termination Of Professor Ward Churchill” (October 24, 2006).

Our DU chapter has voted, by a wide margin, to endorse the statement made by our AAUP colleagues at CU-Boulder about this case, and to stand in solidarity with them in the interest of protecting university autonomy, due process, and academic freedom.

Sincerely,
Dean J. Saitta
President, University of Denver Chapter
American Association of University Professors
Professor of Anthropology
Department of Anthropology
Sturm Hall 146
2000 East Asbury Street
University of Denver
Denver, CO 80208
303.871.2680 (phone)

Immanuel Wallerstein, Yale University Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scholar* Says

For me the issue is very simple. I do not know Ward Churchill and I have not read much of what he has written. But the whole move for his dismissal was precipitated by his criticism of the U.S. government’s reaction to September 11, which caused some Colorado legislators to call for his dismissal. This is direct and dangerous interference with academic freedom. Furthermore, it undermines the legitimacy of political dissent, without which no country can pretend to be democratic. We must all defend such dissent, whether or not we agree with it.

As far as I can see, the university administration, knowing that they could not openly accede to such illegitimate political pressures, did an end run and sought to find an excuse, a thin one in fact, to dismiss Ward Churchill on other grounds. They knew what they were really doing, which was responding to political pressure. And we know that it is shameful. They should rescind all action along these lines.

Click here to read April 28, 2007 solidarity statements in support of Professor Ward Churchill from:

1. Gil Anidjar – Columbia University
2. Bill Ayers – University of Illinois – Chicago
3. Dana Cloud – University of Texas
4. Drucilla Cornell – Rutgers University
5. Hamid Dabashi – Columbia University
6. Michael D’Andrea – University of Hawai’i
7. Richard Delgado – University of Pittsburgh
8. Richard Falk – UC Santa Barbara; Professor Emeritus, Princeton University
9. Juan Gomez-Quinones – UCLA
10. Robert Ivie – University of Illinois, Bloomington
11. Robert Jensen – University of Texas
12. Peter Kirstein – St. Xavier University
13. Carlos Munoz, Jr. – UC Berkeley
14. Henry Silverman – Michigan State University
15. Paul Von Blum - UCLA
16. Immanuel Wallerstein – Yale University
17. Howard Zinn – Professor Emeritus – Boston University

* institutional affiliations are included for identification purposes only

Defend Ward Churchill - Bill Ayers

Defend Ward Churchill

Dear Colleagues,

In Brecht’s play Galileo the great astronomer sets forth into a world dominated by a mighty church and an authoritarian power: “The cities are narrow and so are the brains,” he declares recklessly. “Superstition and plague. But now the word is: since it is so, it does not remain so. For everything moves my friend.” Intoxicated with his own radical discoveries, Galileo feels the earth shifting and finds himself propelled surprisingly toward revolution. ” It was always said that the stars were fastened to a crystal vault so they could not fall,” he says. “Now we have taken heart and let them float in the air, without support… they are embarked on a great voyage—like us who are also without support and embarked on a great voyage.” Here Galileo raises the stakes and risks taking on the establishment in the realm of its own authority, and it strikes back fiercely. Forced to renounce his life’s work under the exquisite pressure of the Inquisition he denounces what he knows to be true, and is welcomed back into the church and the ranks of the faithful, but exiled from humanity—by his own word. A former student confronts him in the street: “Many on all sides followed you with their ears and their eyes believing that you stood, not only for a particular view of the movement of the stars, but even more for the liberty of teaching— in all fields. Not then for any particular thoughts, but for the right to think at all. Which is in dispute.”

The right to think at all, which is in dispute—-this is what the Ward Churchill affair finally comes to: The right to a mind of one’s own, the right to pursue an argument into uncharted spaces, the right to challenge the church and its orthodoxy in the public square. The right to think at all.

It’s no surprise that this outrage against Professor Churchill occurs at this particular moment— a time of empire resurrected and unapologetic, militarism proudly expanding and triumphant, war without justice and without end, white supremacy retrenched, basic rights and protections shredded, growing disparities between the haves and the have-nots, fear and superstition and the mobilization of scapegoating social formations based on bigotry and violence or the threats of violence, and on and on. There’s more of course, and this isn’t the only story, but this is a recognizable part of where we’re living, and a familiar place to anyone with even a casual understanding of history. Here the competing impulses and ideals that have always animated our country’s story are on full display: rights and liberty and the pursuit of human freedom on one side, domination and war and repression on the other. The trauma of contradictions that is America.

Ward Churchill is under a sustained, orchestrated, and determined attack because of his political beliefs and statements and activities, and nothing more. No one doubts his productivity or his accomplishments. But the attack on Churchill is neither isolated nor innocent— the high school history teacher on the west side of Chicago gets the message, and so does the English literature teacher in Detroit and the math teacher in an Oakland middle school: be careful what you say; stay close to the official story; stick to the authorized text. If someone of Ward Churchill’s stature and standing for so many years at the University of Colorado can suffer this kind of campaign, what chance do I have?

Every committee, every investigation, every report plays out under a shadow of the star chamber; everyone must choose who to be and how to act in response. For this reason I support Ward Churchill unequivocally, unapologetically, whole-heartedly. I urge my colleagues and my students and everyone who values education as a grand enterprise geared toward enlightenment and liberation to speak out forcefully and fearlessly now on behalf of the liberty of teaching and learning, on behalf of the right to think at all.

Sincerely,
William Ayers
Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar
University of Illinois at Chicago
billayers.org

CU Faculty and American Indian Studies Experts to CU: Rescind the Report of the Investigative Committee

On April 23, nine professors issued an Open Letter Calling on the University of Colorado to retract the Report upon which the recommendation to fire Ward Churchill is based.

According to the professors, a close reading of the Report shows “a pattern of violations” of “standard scholarly practice that are so serious” that research misconduct charges against the authors of the Report may be warranted.

After studying the May 9, 2006 Report, which the CU Investigative Committee insisted on making public in violation of University rules on confidentiality, these faculty members find that it:

* relies on a single biased source for major arguments, importing its errors or distortions;

* artificially excludes independent sources representing alternative views;

* misrepresents a Supreme Court Case to create the false appearance of authoritativeness;

* turns a scholarly debate into an indictment by arbitrarily limiting the scope of interpretation; and

* suppresses text from sources cited by Prof. Churchill, deliberately distorting them to prejudice the reader against Prof. Churchill.

The authors find the pattern of violations “serious enough to justify failing a PhD thesis, let alone an investigative report that is to serve as a basis for firing a tenured, full professor.”

They conclude that the Report “compromises . . . the integrity of the protocols and principles that protect academic freedom” and “puts any professor at risk of arbitrary dismissal.”

Click here to read the Open Letter.

Click here to read the professors’ Summary of Violations.

Click here to read their Documentary Evidence of some of the violations.

Colorado Conference of AAUP Backs Call to Rescind Report

The Executive Committee of the Colorado Conference of the American Association of University Professors called upon CU President Hank Brown to rescind the report accusing Prof. Ward Churchill of research misconduct.

Its letter of April 24, 2007 further states that if the report is not rescinded, the University has an obligation to ensure a thorough examination of the charges made by the faculty by “an independent, qualified, and unbiased panel, not by the investigating committee that made the apparent mistakes in the first place.”

It adds that “no action should be taken on the basis of the Report until this examination is completed.”

Click here to read the letter from the President of the AAUP Colorado Conference.

Attention All Students and Faculty Nationwide

As some of you may know, the investigation and firing decision of University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill is coming to a close. Students and Faculty for True Academic Freedom at CU (a group of committed people supporting dissent and critical thinking as well as Academic Freedom) need YOUR help. We are hosting an Emergency National Forum this Saturday, April 28th, 2007 to discuss Ward’s case and its implications for students and faculty here at Boulder, its impact on Indigenous Studies, and how it can be used to critique imperialism. We are reaching out to build an action network to stop the firing of Ward.  If anyone can make it to Boulder, Colorado, we can put up 10 people in billets but beyond that we can tell you how to find cheap lodging in Boulder. If you cannot make it we need your support on Friday, April 27th. We are planning a national walk-out for students at noon to show that we will not be silenced and that we demand fair and equal respect for all professors. I urge you all to stand up, come together and send out press releases before the walk-out. If you have any questions or concerns please contact Kim Collins at kim4wardchurchill@yahoo.com or at 719-321-4343.