While the CU investigative committee claims that it took great care to avoid the speech which precipitated the furor over Ward Churchill, there is no way to divorce the review of his scholarship from the public controversy which caused it. If Professor Churchill may be dismissed on the basis of the charges found valid by CU’s P&T Appeals panel, charges which he contests, scholars critical of the status quo who teach in the Colorado system, as well as throughout the country, should not rest easily. For if the same standards and a similarly flawed process were applied to all scholars, many of them might lose their jobs as well. The message that a dismissal in this case sends to all academics who engage in work that questions the status quo is that they continue that work at their peril. If they continue to publish politically unpopular ideas, then, like Professor Churchill, they may find their scholarship put under a microscope, their livelihood threatened, and due process and fundamental fairness considerations put aside by administrators who lack the courage and conviction to protect academic freedom when it matters most, when unpopular individuals and ideas are in the crosshairs.Naturally, SALT smears the committee with the bogus countercharges made against it by Churchill's supporters, while completely ignoring the substance of the committee's findings; equally naturally, Churchill's frau Natsu Saito is on SALT's board of directors. PB has the whole sickening statement.
Update: In the idiot pages of Counterpunch, Frau Churchill thanks the little people for their support:
What has meant the most to us, however, has been the support of elders like Carrie Dann of the Western Shoshone and Japanese American activist Yuri Kochiyama, young people who are searching for a way to cope with an uncertain future, and regular people on the street--parking lot attendants, baggage handlers, homeless people--who consistently express their appreciation that Ward refuses to be silenced. They know this is not about footnotes.
(via "Lawyer" in comments at PB)
Update II: PB checks "Truthforce" Saito's math.
Update III: In the Counterpunch piece Saito claims that Ward "published an article in Z Magazine in which the editors, without telling him, deleted his attribution of co-authorship to "Dam the Dams." . . .The same claim was made by Tom Mayer:
Churchill gave the Dam the Dams campaign co-authorship of this article, however, the organization's name was omitted by Z-Magazine's editor [editor, editors, who's counting?] without Churchill's knowledge and against his wishes.
And by Churchill himself to the investigating committee, which responded with:
[T]his claim, like many of Professor Churchill's claims, is difficult to disprove, but it is the responsibility of an author working with a publisher to ensure that proper credit is given to co-authors and sources.Left unexplained by Churchill or anyone else is why Z-rag would be so recalcitrant on this point of authorship against Churchill's express (though he apparently never quite says he expressed them) wishes. Also unexplained is why Churchill, having been ignored in such egregious fashion, continued to write for the magazine, never protesting publicly until the article became an issue in his case.
Update IV: Almost totally OT: "CU professor drowns in Mexico."