As someone whose family would say is obsessed with family history, I
find all of this fascinating. Although I have far more English ancestry
than Scottish, I identify myself as Scottish. It is possible Ward
Churchill does the same based on a family legend of his Indian heritage.
However, most of us family history hobbyists clearly identify legend as
such and search to prove (or disprove) it. It seems Churchill has done
neither.
Other than false inheritance, the only time this might matter is when
claiming clan leadership by blood descent. My mother's Robertson
ancestors are reportedly descended from the chiefs of the clan, but I
can't find the connection and it would be much more distant than the
current clan chief, if it exists at all. On my father's side, I have
reasonably strong evidence of descent from James I of Scotland (Not
James VI of Scotland and James I of United Kingdom). But even if
Scotland someday becomes independent, I am not very close in line to be
king.
Ross D. Petty
Professor of Marketing Law
Babson College
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ingulli, Elaine
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 11:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: First Amendment and Ward Churchill
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
|
