Pro-Terrorist Ward Churchill a plagiarist?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Since I havent followed this situation except on the periphery it's difficult to really know whats going on. Based on his rebuttal to the charges against him, I'd say that Churchill (I hate using that name in association with this burke) has some valid points with respect to american foreign policy and our attitudes toward it. In addition, what he did does not appear to be classic plagarism. It appears to be totally unethical however and may still serve the purpose of providing 'just cause' to revoke his tenure. Strange as it seems, I agree with Agathon (to some extent).

As I said (several times), if it doesn't meet the level of a termination-worthy offense, then by all means, let Churchill keep his job. My issue isn't at all with what Churchill's opinions are--he can believe and say what he wants. I think what he says is repugnant and makes him a total *******, but that's his right.

But that's not all Aggie is saying, oh no! See, even if it were blatant, outright plagiarism, he thinks that Churchill shouldn't be fired because doing so would appease some right-wingers. No worries about whether or not he's actually guilty of the offense, but he thinks people who share his ideology should be excused of accountability for their actions if they also happen to be a favored whipping boy of the side he opposes. That's the real issue at hand that makes me ill about what he's saying. He is basically saying that Churchill's self-made status as a provacateur should grant him immunity from any repercussions for academic malfeasance.

Given this incident AND the other incidents cited against Churchill, I think it's pretty obvious that he is, at the very least, a highly unethical scholar who doesn't give a damn about honesty, integrity or the rights of his colleagues over their work. Any university would want to get rid of such a person, and they would have just cause to do so. Furthermore, the fact that said person set themselves up (purposefully) to be a pariah to the right-wing for his own glorification purposes shouldn't render him unaccountable for his misdeeds. To do so would be truly dispicable, and impugn the integrity of academic to no end. Why should anyone trust academic institutions if they give any tolerance to such behavior, regardless of the political bent of those saying it?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its not plagarism if he didnt claim the work as his own. Based on what Agathon has posted he did not do that. In essense he acted as an editor. His 'crime' is that he published the poem against the wishes of the author. That may be academic 'bad form' but if the copyright is owned by someone else (and it may well be since it is already published work) then the author has no leg to stand on. The university may decide, however, that acting in such a manner amounts to a breach of ethics and fire him for something like 'impugning the reputation of the university'.

The problem with this entire argument is that it is based on AGathon's blatant lying.

[Dinner]

It seems once again our young Aggie is wrong. The extant of the plagiarism goes fair beyond a poem which he didn't site and includes coping a painting of Indians (he's an ethnic studies teacher remember). He sold 150 copies of the copied painting for $100 each netting him $1500.

As Prentup flipped through a book of illustrations by renowned artist Thomas E. Mails, he found an artwork of striking similarity.

"And I opened it up and, wham! There it was," Prentup said. "It's the exact same thing, only mirror image, virtually to every detail."

The pen and ink sketch by Thomas Mails first appeared in his 1972 masterpiece, "The Mystic Warriors of the Plains."

Compare it side-by-side to the serigraph by Churchill, created some 20 years later: the composition, the images, the placement are nearly identical.

Intellectual property attorney Jim Hubbell said it's clearly no accident.

"It's very obvious that the Churchill piece was taken directly from the Mails piece," Hubbell said. "There's just too many similarities between the two for it to have been coincidence."

It appears a second piece of Ward's "original artwork" has also been stolen from another artist. This one show's an indian Chief. That link has pictures of all four paintings including the originals and Churchills copies.

[Dinner]

Original 1972 art work by Thomas Mails.

[Dinner]

Ward Churchill's supposed original art work.

[Dinner]

"Little Big Man," by Charles M. Bell. Read about it HERE.

[Dinner]

(Pircture didn't attach in last post so 2nd try for 1870, Little Big Man.)

[Dinner]

An oil on canvas which WardChurchill claimed was his original artwork and which gave no mention of the previous photograph.

[DinoDoc]

Doesn't matter. Calling him on it will please right wingers and is therefore bad.

[Dinner]

Rest assured DD that not all of us our wacked out like Aggie and Kid. I'm a center left sort of guy who is down right socialy liberal (though fically conservative in that I want low taxes and a balanced budget) yet I find Ward Churchill's plagiarism a dispicable abuse of the academic system. In academy all you have is your honor and good word. If you say you've done something then people will believe you (until it is proven you lied) so if you claim you finished an experiment/painted a picture/wrote a essay it better be yours and not something you stole.

[Giancarlo]

Ward Churchill is a proven liar.. I've seen the evidence.. he's a consistent liar...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

But that's not all Aggie is saying, oh no! See, even if it were blatant, outright plagiarism, he thinks that Churchill shouldn't be fired because doing so would appease some right-wingers.

Why do you persist in misrepresenting my argument? Surely you can do better than that...

My position is that people shouldn't be fired for bad things they have done if they are really being fired for reasons that (a) have nothing to do with it, and (b) firing for these reasons constitutes a worse crime than the one the person is supposedly being fired for.

That's my position on the issue. My actual position, not the patently ridiculous argument you paint. In addition I think, with reasonable justification, that the negative consequences of Churchill being fired would be more than the appeasement of right wingers.

Your position is to allow the craven and despicable university board to fire Churchill for his unpopular opinions. The plagiarism thing is an excuse because everyone knows why he's in trouble, and it isn't the plagiarism.

No worries about whether or not he's actually guilty of the offense, but he thinks people who share his ideology should be excused of accountability for their actions if they also happen to be a favored whipping boy of the side he opposes.

I've never said that. In fact I would be just as sick if it were a right wing professor being hounded out in a similar manner for expressing his opinions.

The only time I have ever supported someone being removed from a university was back in New Zealand, where I publicly opposed (along with many other students, staff, locals and the NZ Jewish community) the admission of a card carrying neo-nazi who had performed bizarre medical experiments on people, who was wanted by the German police for that and various other things, who was on record as a holocaust denier, whose grades had been fiddled with and whose thesis project was based around the idea of interviewing Germans who had settled in New Zealand, who happen in the most part to be elderly Jewish holocaust survivors. All of these charges are a matter of public record. My submission is still in the archive of the inquiry that resulted. Unfortunately, I had to leave for Canada as things were getting really heated, but I did the best that I could to make my voice heard.

You can call me inconsistent if you like. But I hardly think that opposing Adolf Hitler Jr from interviewing elderly holocaust survivors and using our university as a pulpit to deny the holocaust while doing so, comes within a bull's roar of violating any reasonable definition of academic freedom.

For the record, if he'd wanted to do a PhD in physics or bio or management, I wouldn't have cared. It was the interviewing elderly Jews that I found most repugnant.

That's the real issue at hand that makes me ill about what he's saying. He is basically saying that Churchill's self-made status as a provacateur should grant him immunity from any repercussions for academic malfeasance.

No. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that the university should not be allowed to fire someone for exercising their academic freedom. Since they only care about the plagiarism case insofar as it gets rid of Churchill because of what he said, they are far worse than he is. Letting them get away with it is a worse evil than letting Churchill remain.

It's exactly the same as the newspaper case I constructed in the previous post.

Given this incident AND the other incidents cited against Churchill, I think it's pretty obvious that he is, at the very least, a highly unethical scholar who doesn't give a damn about honesty, integrity or the rights of his colleagues over their work. Any university would want to get rid of such a person, and they would have just cause to do so.

You did go to college, didn't you? Ever do graduate work?

There's basically one method that is tried again and again in universities to get rid of "troublesome" tenured faculty members, and it is the one that is being used to try to get rid of Ward Churchill.

You can't fire them for saying things you don't like, so you find something that can be used against them. For example: a trumped up charge of plagiarism, or some other fraud. Or perhaps you bribe some graduate students to complain about his teaching or supervision (don't laugh - I've actually seen that one happen). Or - my favourite - and the most popular: sexual harassment (he looks too long at girls or once touched a co-ed).

If you have enough friends in high places in the university you can make these charges stick, or at least get the person suspended or make them fight a long and expensive case against dismissal.

You'd think that other academics would leap to the defence of this unjustly accused person.... but no... they are pretty much sheep at the mercy of the administrators.

This seems to me what is happening to Churchill. They keep dragging up **** in hopes that some of it will stick. What they are doing is utterly wrong, no matter what Churchill has done, because what they really want is to censor politically unpopular beliefs - at a university.

Furthermore, the fact that said person set themselves up (purposefully) to be a pariah to the right-wing for his own glorification purposes shouldn't render him unaccountable for his misdeeds. To do so would be truly dispicable, and impugn the integrity of academic to no end. Why should anyone trust academic institutions if they give any tolerance to such behavior, regardless of the political bent of those saying it?

What's worse? An academy where people occasionally steal each others ideas, or an academy where all the ideas there are to be stolen are effectively censored by the university administration?

Give me the former any day.

[Sava]

wow he copied paintings? what a ****ing loser.

[Giancarlo]

Agathon I'm sorry but your responses are no longer worth replies. Churchill has been proven to be a consistent liar with a huge track record of forgeries, lies and plagiarism... deny it all you want, but it is doing no good for your own integrity or standing.

[Agathon]

Andy Warhol copied brillo boxes.