The issues here include allegations that Professor Churchill plagiarized, fabricated, and falsified facts related to Indian (Native American) history. This area of study is still in its infancy as compared to numerous disciplines and programs. The Academy is finally beginning to recognize Ethnic Studies and has started to legitimize and given [PB's sic] credence to research in this area. For many scholars in Ethnic Studies, publishing meant work appearing in what would be considered non-mainstream journals; today, evaluation of that type of scholarly work is beginning to be considered as valid research [my sic, this time]. . . .That last clause is simply gibberish, but the intent of the paragraph is clear: to reassure the notoriously insecure ethnic studians that their field isn't the load of crap it so manifestly is. Then it's back to sternity:
Some scholars in Ethnic Studies may focus on rewriting historical ethnological data in search for "truth," but this does not support nor does it grant anyone the right to plagiarize, falsify, or fabricate evidence.Yep, "'truth.'"
Update: Somewhere along the line in the de-churchillization process one committee or other very briefly discussed getting rid of the Ethnic Studies department, but I'm too lazy to hunt it down.