Pro-Terrorist Ward Churchill a plagiarist?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Giancarlo

He attacked the government on some very fundamental issues. Those lawmakers attacked the adminstration on some policy moves.

So disagreeing with Bush is attacking the government? You are sounding like a fascist, no wonder you like murderous scum like Franco and Pinochet. Just because I disagree with Bush, doesn't mean I want to overthrow the government.

[Agathon]

"To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.

He didn't do that, since he didn't claim authorship of the article.

To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another"

Again, it isn't clear that he appropriated them for use "as his own", since the references contained abundant mentions of this person's name, and he did not claim authorship of the article.

Copyright infringement and use of ideas without permission are not necessarily plagiarism, although plagiarism can involve both these things.

So you'll have to try harder Fez.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Agathon

"To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.

He didn't do that, since he didn't claim authorship of the article.

Yes he did. That is what exactly was substantiated.

To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another"

Again, it isn't clear that he appropriated them for use "as his own", since the references contained abundant mentions of this person's name, and he did not claim authorship of the article.

Copyright infringement and use of ideas without permission are not necessarily plagiarism, although plagiarism can involve both these things.

So you'll have to try harder Fez.

Excellent selective reading. Funny how you didn't quote the first definition. That's very selective of you... is that how all you communists think? Take the definition that works best for your opinion, even though there may be more then one definition for that word? Look at the first definition, numb nuts.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
My position is that the plagiarism charges are only getting any play because of the context. That seems obviously true - no one would care otherwise.

I have no doubt the only reason the charges are in the media are due to his notoriety. I made that point explicitely. I also pointed out that the plagiarism charge itself stems from before he was so famous. How is that hard for you understand?

More to the point these sorts of things are always brought up in an efffort to fire people with unpopular views (If I hadn't personally seen this happen half a dozen times before, I might actually believe you - but I know what I'm talking about, so I don't).

Right, always. Sure. I'm sure never in the history of the world has a legitimate plagiarism charge in academia been brought forth. Nope, never.

So the reality is: left wing academic under threat because of right wing campaign to oust him.

I've still yet to see any substantiation that woman accusing him is part of some "right wing campaign." Do enlighten us, but not with any more bald-ass assumptions on your part, mkay?

Your pleasure at Churchill getting fired, is simply childish.

I've seen you take pleasure in the misfortune of those you oppose politically all the time. You're such a smarmy hypocrite.

I don't hope Churchill dies or anything, I just would love to see him get what's coming to him. If he's guilty of the charges, then he's got a firing coming to him, end of story.

If he goes, for whatever reason - that's not just a "small modicum of satisfaction to people I hate", it's a big win to nutcases like David Horowitz who want to purge radicals from campus and institute an "academic bill of rights" which is code for restricting academic freedom. I don't really care about Churchill individually, but I care that this doesn't happen.

Oh yawn. So people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because you see a slipperly slope into some sort of Orwellian hell, despite the fact you have produced any evidence whatsoever that the specific charges stem from any right-wing source. I'll ask again--if Churchill was to be accused of rape, would you advocate he not be punished for it, just because it might make some righties happy?

If Churchill goes, for whatever stated reason, the real reason will be that the right wing campaign worked. After all, the plagiarism accusations are only getting air because of the context. If he's fired over these charges, it won't be because of them, it will be because they are a convenient excuse. That is a fact.

No, if Churchill goes, it will be because the campus had some integrity and they upheld the notion that people should be held accountable for their actions. Apparently you don't see what that's important, but I certainly do.

If he does go, then it will send a chill through the academic community (which it has already to some degree) and will embolden the right to oust other professors with views they don't like. There probably isn't a professor on any campus who couldn't be accused of doing something wrong and fired or suspended if pressure is brought to bear. Like I said, I have seen it happen many times. This is 100% political - it has really nothing much to do with the plagiarism and everything to do with censoring people like Ward Churchill.

In reality, it's people like you defending Churchill in this instance that create the real damage to the left. By giving him a special pass, you just fall into right-wing hands where they can accuse you (justly) of advocating a double standard and not having any concern for integrity or honesty. If Churchill did the crime, he has to be punished, as simple as that. Advocating otherwise is irresponsible. Your fantasy scenario of this leading to some sort of chill is just that--fantasy. Most academics and see the difference between defending someone's first ammendment rights and defending someone's unethical/possibly criminal behavior.

I guess you are incapable of understanding what "the greater good" means. But then again you are so absorbed with yourself that I don't find that hard to believe.

The last sentence is priceless, especially coming from you. A blatant ad hominem!

But I do indeed understand the greater good--it's you who don't seem to get it. If academia isn't held to ethical standards, then everything the right has done to trash it will be vindicated. They can turn to the public and say, "see how corrupt the left is?" I'm surprised you'd be so dumb as to play into their hands this way--your response is exactly what the right wants. They can just point at you and show everyone how looney we leftists are!

See - it's not "plagiarism" as most people would think of it, and Churchill doesn't even claim authorship of the document (he claims to have "prepared" it, which is true). This is not a case of claiming that someone else's work is yours (plagiarism) but of using someone else's work without permission. That's bad, but it is not the academic offence that plagiarism is - it's more like a matter for a lawsuit than an academic offence tribunal.

See how badly you are a stooge for the right, Boris.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Last time I checked, using the work of another when they didn't permit it (and in this case, explicitley forbade it) was still a major no-no. I'd think you'd be able to grasp that concept from the thread about the gay couple's photo being used in the anti-AARP advertisement. That you'd dismiss this as so minor it just further proof that you have no concern for integrity.

Furthermore, this just vindicates my position that Churchill is a royal *******. That is hardly a flattering depiction of your hero--it shows he was a royal jerk, and he did what he did with malice and forethought. At least if it were "traditional" plagiarism, he could defend himself on the grounds that he inadvertently copied material. Here we see he did it deliberately. Thanks for proving my point so well

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I have no doubt the only reason the charges are in the media are due to his notoriety. I made that point explicitely. I also pointed out that the plagiarism charge itself stems from before he was so famous. How is that hard for you understand?

You'll have to do better than that. Why don't you try reading for a change?

Right, always. Sure. I'm sure never in the history of the world has a legitimate plagiarism charge in academia been brought forth. Nope, never.

That's not what I said, so how about trying a worthwhile argument for a change.

I've still yet to see any substantiation that woman accusing him is part of some "right wing campaign." Do enlighten us, but not with any more bald-ass assumptions on your part, mkay?

Again, that's not true either. Don't attribute beliefs to me that I don't hold to bolster your feeble argument. As I understand it that woman is not connected with the rightist loons, but they are the ones making a big deal out of it.

I've seen you take pleasure in the misfortune of those you oppose politically all the time. You're such a smarmy hypocrite.

I'm not the smarmy one here.

Oh yawn. So people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because you see a slipperly slope into some sort of Orwellian hell, despite the fact you have produced any evidence whatsoever that the specific charges stem from any right-wing source. I'll ask again--if Churchill was to be accused of rape, would you advocate he not be punished for it, just because it might make some righties happy?

Why don't you actually respond to my argument instead of some bull**** reconstruction of it that you have invented.

If you can't see the difference between rape and plagiarism, then you have a problem.

In the scheme of things it would be better overall if Churchill were left alone, to stop right wing nuts increasing their campaign to suppress views they don't like. Academic freedom matters more than one case of purported plagiarism.

No, if Churchill goes, it will be because the campus had some integrity and they upheld the notion that people should be held accountable for their actions. Apparently you don't see what that's important, but I certainly do.

Yeah yeah... they want him out because it's causing them political trouble. I've seen this happen so many times before. Jesus, you can concoct any story like this about almost any professor who's been around for long enough - I've seen it done before.

in reality, it's people like you defending Churchill in this instance that create the real damage to the left. By giving him a special pass, you just fall into right-wing hands where they can accuse you (justly) of advocating a double standard and not having any concern for integrity or honesty.

There's no double standard in wishing for the lesser of two evils. We teach this in our introductory classes. I guess you weren't bright enough to pick up the difference.

If Churchill did the crime, he has to be punished, as simple as that. Advocating otherwise is irresponsible. Your fantasy scenario of this leading to some sort of chill is just that--fantasy.

Prove it.

There's already a political campaign to mandate "conservative" views on campus, and it has plenty of supporters. I don't want to see it get any further.

Most academics and see the difference between defending someone's first ammendment rights and defending someone's unethical/possibly criminal behavior.

As I said, ignore the context; ignore the consequences, and we have your daft view. Please try harder.

But I do indeed understand the greater good--it's you who don't seem to get it. If academia isn't held to ethical standards, then everything the right has done to trash it will be vindicated. They can turn to the public and say, "see how corrupt the left is?"

Oh baloney. If he gets fired, it will be worse than if he didn't.

I'm surprised you'd be so dumb as to play into their hands this way--your response is exactly what the right wants. They can just point at you and show everyone how looney we leftists are!

I'd rather be me than someone whose politics is based on his personal narcissicism. If gays weren't oppressed in our society, you'd be just another tired old conservative. At least my politics aren't based purely on selfishness.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Last time I checked, using the work of another when they didn't permit it (and in this case, explicitley forbade it) was still a major no-no.

It's a no-no, but it isn't plagiarism. I deal with plagiarism cases all the time and I simply know better than you do.

Plagiarism is a big deal because it undermines the purpose of producing original scholarship. Printing someone else's piece while not claiming that it is your own is a much lesser matter.

In fact this is a case for a lawsuit and some kind of academic sanction, but it isn't plagiarism, and it probably isn't a firing offence based on my experience. Churchill did not present the work as his own, and he'd published it before under the author's name.

This is a minor spat in academic circles.

Besides.. we really don't know what the truth is yet. And as I've said, charges like these are pretty easy to cook up when you want to get rid of someone for political reasons.

I'd think you'd be able to grasp that concept from the thread about the gay couple's photo being used in the anti-AARP advertisement. That you'd dismiss this as so minor it just further proof that you have no concern for integrity.

It's not a matter of plagiarism. It's not even mildly defamatory as your case is. This charge is being used to undermine Churchill's credibility as a scholar by right wing clowns. It's not even clear yet that any wrongdoing occurred.

But nice of you to join in the witch hunt all the same.

Furthermore, this just vindicates my position that Churchill is a royal *******. That is hardly a flattering depiction of your hero--it shows he was a royal jerk, and he did what he did with malice and forethought. At least if it were "traditional" plagiarism, he could defend himself on the grounds that he inadvertently copied material. Here we see he did it deliberately. Thanks for proving my point so well

I never said he was my hero. I don't like the guy. I merely said I'd rather not see him get fired and hand the right a whipping boy to further their cause.

You really need to do better. Your arguments are poor and based on straw men or attack positions I did not claim. Why not try reading my actual argument before posting irrelevancies.

Perhaps you should go back to school and learn how to do it properly.

[chequita guevara]

Churchill is an agent-povaceteur. It's time to get this cretin thrown out.

[Giancarlo]

It's a no-no, but it isn't plagiarism. I deal with plagiarism cases all the time and I simply know better than you do.

Plagiarism is a big deal because it undermines the purpose of producing original scholarship. Printing someone else's piece while not claiming that it is your own is a much lesser matter.

Actually no... it is plagiarism. He took ones work and claimed it as his own. I don't know what is so difficult for you to comprehend on this one.. this isn't a lesser matter. He committed an act of dishonesty and he was so supposed to be trusted to hold the highest standards as a professor.

Churchill did not present the work as his own, and he'd published it before under the author's name.

Read the article I posted before you say things like that! He did present the work as his own, and he did NOT give credit to the author.

[chequita guevara]

Of course he's dishonest. He's a government agent posing as a leftist to cause trouble.

[Kuciwalker]

[monolith94]

That's sketchy academia, and he ought not to have done it, but I wouldn't go so far as to label it plagiarism. Perhaps misuse of copyrighted material, if the essay was copyrighted, which I doubt. Definitely not grounds for dismissal. It seems all too convenient - a professor says something grossly politically incorrect, and all of a sudden this small and obscure incident arises. Smells fishy to me.

[Kuciwalker]

Eh, the charges were made well before the controversy.

[monolith94]

And they are only being followed up on because of the controversy. That to me smacks of desperation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by monolith94
It seems all too convenient - a professor says something grossly politically incorrect, and all of a sudden this small and obscure incident arises.

He's been saying such things for years and (if we believe che) been verbally abusive to students for almost the same amount of time. This isn't just cropping up. It's more like chickens coming home to roost if I may coin a phrase.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
You'll have to do better than that. Why don't you try reading for a change?

That's not an argument, just another cop out on your part.

Right, always. Sure. I'm sure never in the history of the world has a legitimate plagiarism charge in academia been brought forth. Nope, never.

That's not what I said, so how about trying a worthwhile argument for a change.

An evasion, and a cop out. You explicitely said these things "always" came to light under such circumstances.

Hey, when Doris Kearns had those plagiarism accusations against her 2 years ago, was that part of some right-wing cabal's efforts to discredit her?

Again, that's not true either. Don't attribute beliefs to me that I don't hold to bolster your feeble argument. As I understand it that woman is not connected with the rightist loons, but they are the ones making a big deal out of it.

If you think that the charges against Churchill are part of the right-wing conspiracy against him, I can only assume you think the one who is actually charging him is part of the conspiracy against him. After all, would you be dumb enough to conflate someone you knew wasn't involved with said conspiracy with those who are? Oops, looks like you are!

I'm not the smarmy one here.

I know you are, but what am I?

Why don't you actually respond to my argument instead of some bull**** reconstruction of it that you have invented.

Another cop out. I notice this trend in you--when stymied for an argument, you just retreat to hand-waving dismissals.

If you can't see the difference between rape and plagiarism, then you have a problem.

Quite rich from the person who tried to equate the right-wing hatred of Churchill with two guys beating a young man to death.

In the scheme of things it would be better overall if Churchill were left alone, to stop right wing nuts increasing their campaign to suppress views they don't like. Academic freedom matters more than one case of purported plagiarism.

And yet you've utterly failed to substantiate how letting a plagiarism case slide would support such academic freedom. You've just engaged in a slipperly-slope fantasy.

Yeah yeah... they want him out because it's causing them political trouble. I've seen this happen so many times before. Jesus, you can concoct any story like this about almost any professor who's been around for long enough - I've seen it done before.

So why did they refuse to fire him after all the other complaints about him? You do know that he's been accused of plagiarism before, right?

You seem to be (again) missing the crucial point here--I don't want Churchill to be fired if he's done nothing wrong. But if he has, then he deserves to be fired, simple as that.

There's no double standard in wishing for the lesser of two evils. We teach this in our introductory classes. I guess you weren't bright enough to pick up the difference.

I shudder for the futures of your students.

It is indeed a double standard when you constantly sit here on Apolyton and rail at the unethical behavior of conservatives, only to tolerate such behavior when it is by someone with which you have political sympathies. I point again to your utter lack of integrity on this issue.

Prove it.

Wait, you've been proferring a Chicken Little, doomsday scenario here that the firing of Churchill--even if it is meritted--will result in a long, dark winter for academia...but you've not offered any proof! So why can't I engage in my own fantasy scenarios? Hypocrisy yet again.

There's already a political campaign to mandate "conservative" views on campus, and it has plenty of supporters. I don't want to see it get any further.

Indeed. But firing one professor if he has done something to merit being fired has nothing to do with that campaign. As I said, failing to do so will just give that campaign fuel. I can't believe you'd be so stupid not to see that.

As I said, ignore the context; ignore the consequences, and we have your daft view. Please try harder.

Your consequences are fantasy, your context specious. Why don't you try harder to see why someone who commits academic fraud should be called on it?

Oh baloney. If he gets fired, it will be worse than if he didn't.

Prove it!

I'd rather be me than someone whose politics is based on his personal narcissicism. If gays weren't oppressed in our society, you'd be just another tired old conservative. At least my politics aren't based purely on selfishness.

Oh please. I was a liberal long before I was ever cognizant of my identity as a gay person. And considering I have a pretty staunchly liberal viewpoint on issues entirely unrelated to homosexuality, this is just your usual bit of hot air. I thought philosophy would teach you to argue better than this, right?

I would at least hope it would teach you a lesson about being such a fringe lunatic for your side that you end up alienating everyone who isn't quite as fringe lunatic as you are. But at least we see how far your professed "liberalness" takes you--it certainly doesn't go into any real tolerance of gays. You're quite quick with the homophobia when it suits your needs. Arguing with a gay person? Throw out a bunch if irrelevant analogies to situations that involved a gay person, and then accuse them of selfishness! Way to win people to your cause there, kiddo!

It's a no-no, but it isn't plagiarism. I deal with plagiarism cases all the time and I simply know better than you do.

Surprisingly, Fezzie seems to have already handled this. And I love the arrogant argument from authority!

I don't care if you call it "plagiarism" or not--the fact is that he published something, without any citation, that he was explicitley forbidden from publishing. Any university would have stern repercussions for faculty who did such a thing.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out other instances in which Mr. Churchill has been dishonest and possibly plagiarized:

http://hal.lamar.edu/~BROWNTF/Churchill1.htm

"Situating Churchill’s rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3540066,00.html

Note the bottom quotations. Seems to me he is a serial plagiarist who is finally getting caught. How could you possibly not want to see such an ******* get canned?

Besides.. we really don't know what the truth is yet. And as I've said, charges like these are pretty easy to cook up when you want to get rid of someone for political reasons.

Funny how I said just this and you ignore so you can engage in ad hominems. For the upteenth time, I'll repeat--I only advocate his firing IF he's done something that merits being fired. Happy now?

It's not a matter of plagiarism. It's not even mildly defamatory as your case is. This charge is being used to undermine Churchill's credibility as a scholar by right wing clowns. It's not even clear yet that any wrongdoing occurred.

But nice of you to join in the witch hunt all the same.

How could you possibly assert that his using a passage he was explicitley forbidden from using isn't clearly wrongdoing? Good lord!

Churchill has done plenty to undermine his own credibility as a scholar. The fact that you cling to him so pathetically just undermines your own integrity. Look into the truth of his claims to be a Native American and tell me more about his credibility.

For a philosophy "teacher," you seem to have trouble with some really simple concepts. The first being that people who commit wrongdoing should be punished for them.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Eh, the charges were made well before the controversy.

Well secret government agents went back into time to make the charges happen before the controversy! Don't you realize the secret right wing conspiracy?

"Surprisingly, Fezzie seems to have already handled this."

Hey thanks man. And no hard feelings for anything I said bad to you in that cat thread.