For the oft-quoted section of the leading case on free speech in the university, see attached. Sorry i can't seem to cut and paste on Outlook Express. 

 

 



	-----Original Message----- 

	From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of Keith Maxwell 

	Sent: Fri 2/11/2005 3:56 PM 

	To: [log in to unmask] 

	Cc: 

	Subject: Re: First Amendment and Ward Churchill

	

	



	Gavin’s background information about the professor is interesting and raises another question: How is the “mixed motive” issue dealt with in First Amendment cases, if at all? Are the Title VII mixed motive cases (Price Waterhouse and progeny) analogous here? Clearly, fraud would be a justification for termination, but it seems to me that the state will have a difficult time denying that the dismissal (if he is dismissed) was motivated initially, and perhaps primarily, because of their offense to protected speech. If the university was not investigating nor acting on fraud allegations before the current episode occurred, and only found out and acted on it because of the complaints about his political views, can they reasonably argue that they would have taken the same action if they had not considered the offensive speech? (Hmm, maybe I’ll have to write an article about this.)



	 



	Keith



	 



	ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

	Keith A. Maxwell

	Nat S. and Marian W. Rogers Professor   

	Professor of Legal Studies and Ethics

	School of Business and Leadership

	University of Puget Sound



	-----Original Message-----

	From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gavin Clarkson

	Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 11:57 AM

	To: [log in to unmask]

	Subject: Re: First Amendment and Ward Churchill



	 



	

	Halito Okla Ikhana (which in Choctaw means "Greetings, fellow scholars"): 

	

	As someone who knows a bit about Ward, there are a number of grounds to boot him out that don't violate his First Amendment rights. 

	

	For those who want to read his essay (trust me, it's not worth your time), here's a link 

	

	http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=print&article=9 

	

	Separate and apart from the fact that his initial screed and subsequent rantings intentionally dishonor the memory of brave warriors from several tribal nations, such as PFC Lori Piestewa (Hopi) who was ambused near Nasiriyah during the first weeks of the Iraq war or Spec. Bellanger McFarlane (Leech Lake Ojibwe) who was killed exactly a month ago by a roadside bomb, Churchill will likely get fired because he will be found to be a fraud, both personally and academically. 

	

	Churchill will likely run into trouble once the UColorado regents begin to examine the sloppy nature of his pseudo-scholarship (some have even called it blatantly fraudulent).  Equally problematic is the fact that Churchill has made a living pretending to be an Indian.  If he misrepresented himself to the University of Colorado during the hiring process, would that not be grounds for dismissal, even for a tenured professor? 

	

	As someone who himself is clearly a pigmentationaly challenged Indian who was raised in the dominant society, but whose parents were both enrolled tribal members, I will leave it to others to point out the depth of Churchill's pseudo-Indian identity fraud, which a number of my colleagues are doing right now. 

	

	My friend Suzan Harjo wrote one of the better pieces yesterday in Indian Country Today ... 

	

	-- begin excerpt -- 

	

	I met Ward Churchill 15 years ago, before he gained his present infamous reputation. My friend, a college professor, said this Cherokee-Creek guy wanted to meet me. I expected to meet an earnest young student who would relate to me as Creek (I'm Hodulgee Muscogee on Dad's side and enrolled Cheyenne on Mom's). 

	

	Instead, there was Churchill. Caucasian in appearance and in his mid-40s, he was wearing dark glasses and going for the look of an Indian activist circa 1970. 

	

	I asked him who his Creek people were and other questions we ask in order to find the proper way of relating. Churchill behaved oddly and did not respond (it's unusual to find Indians so deficient in social skills). 

	

	Churchill now refers to that as an ''interrogation,'' which tells me he still does not know how to be with us. 

	

	Most Native people want to know each other's nation, clan, society, family, Native name - who are you to me and how should I address you? It's an enormously respectful way that we introduce ourselves and establish kinship. 

	

	It wasn't much of an encounter, but it was enough to tell me that he was not culturally Muscogee or Cherokee and had not been around many of our people. 

	

	The next time I heard his name was from Native artists at the Santa Fe Indian Market. Churchill was peddling a scandal sheet, railing against White Earth Chippewa artist David Bradley and the New Mexico and federal Indian arts and crafts laws, which Bradley and other Indian artists helped to enact. 

	

	It turned out that Churchill was a painter - not a good one, but bad art is not illegal - who would face stiff penalties if he promoted his work as made by an Indian if he were not, in fact, an Indian. 

	

	The Indian arts laws bow to tribal determinations of tribal citizenry or membership. There's also an ''artisan'' category as a way for a Native nation to claim an artist who does not meet its citizenship criteria, but who is part of one of its families. 

	

	People began to check out Churchill's claims. Cherokee journalist David Cornsilk verified that Churchill and his ancestors were not on the Cherokee Nation rolls. Creek-Cherokee historian Robert W. Trepp did not find them on the Muscogee (Creek) Nation rolls. 

	

	Churchill lashed out against tribal leaders, sovereignty, citizenship and rolls, attacking Native people who did not support his claims as ''card-carrying Indians'' and ''blood police.'' 

	

	Then, he went tribe-shopping. He added Metis, then Keetoowah, variously claiming to be an associate member, an enrolled member or 1/16 or 3/16 Cherokee. 

	

	Oneida comedian Charlie Hill recalls Churchill interviewing him in 1978. ''I asked him, 'Are you Indian?' And he said, 'No.' Later, I heard that he was saying he was Indian and wondered just how that happened.'' 

	

	Churchill started listing his various ''Indian'' credentials on resumes as he moved into academe. He also moved into American Indian Movement circles, but most of the activists did not accept him as an Indian or as an activist. 

	

	AIM founders and leaders Dennis J. Banks and Clyde H. Bellecourt, both Ojibwa, state that ''Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of [AIM], a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used [Denver AIM] to attack the leadership of the official [AIM] with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns.'' 

	

	Churchill took up ghostwriting for Oglala actor/activist Russell Means. Together with a small following, they protest the annual Columbus parade in Denver. 

	

	As Churchill has lurched through Indian identities, he has not found a single Native relative or ancestor. He is descended from a long line of Churchills that Hank Adams has traced back to the Revolutionary War and Europe. Adams, who is Assiniboine-Sioux and a member of the Frank's Landing Indian Community, has successfully researched and exposed other pseudo-Indians. 

	

	Adams traced Churchill's ancestors on both sides of his family, finding all white people, including documented slave owners and at least one spy, but zero Indians. 

	

	The United Keetoowah Band has disassociated itself from Churchill, so he will have to stop flashing that ''associate member'' card that has enabled him to bully his way around campuses and newsrooms. 

	

	-- end excerpt -- 

	

	The full article is available at http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410335 

	

	Also, another friend of mine runs a website called Indianz.com and has a lot of information about Churchill, including a story where when one of his students dared to question his pseudo-Indian identity, he changed her grade from an A to a C-. 

	

	(see http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/006324.asp ) 

	

	So, while Churchill may have the First Amendment right do validate the perception that he is a wacko, the First Amendment does not insulate him from the consquences of fraud. 

	

	--------------------------------------------- 

	Dr. Gavin Clarkson

	Assistant Professor

	University of Michigan

	    School of Information

	    School of Law

	    Native American Studies

	303C West Hall

	Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092

	734-763-2284

	[log in to unmask]

	http://www.si.umich.edu/~gsmc