No, where I begin to care is when I see evidence of fraudulent academic misconduct. It's one thing to make an honest scholarly mistake and fail to attribute sources due to confusion, or perhaps the misguided assumption that a claim is common knowledge. It's a far different concern to build one's career swiping the ideas of others. That's my understanding of the claims leveled against Mr. Churchill and apparently a faculty review panel substantiated this at some level. [And no, I don't know what that means. Frankly, I don't care enough about this to go find out either].
Over at Inside Higher Ed, there is a raging discussion with all the usual trolls getting in their licks. {I know I should spend my time reading other things, but I get sucked into these things like a soap opera. I just have to see the next outlandish claim made by someone associated with (or antagonistic to) Higher Education}. Within the cacophony of claims, I read this incisive lament by someone calling him/her-self "unapologetically tenured". I quote the comment in full because I don't see any way of linking directly to that comment. If the author of this comment wishes for me to remove this, contact me privately and I will do so.
Quoting...
Political Hacks and Higher Education
The frustrating thing about the Ward Churchill case is that it seems to bring out the worst in everyone. From the political hacks in Denver, to the mouth breathers on cable television, to the professor-hating basement-dwellers who oddly find themselves flocking to higher education websites, everyone plays her part as scripted. It’s all a big game to them, your guys against my guys.
Well, to me this is not a game. This is my career and I take it seriously. I couldn’t care less about Ward Chuchill. In fact, he seems like a bit of an idiot, but that’s not my call to make. I care about this case because I care about academic freedom, not as some abstract slogan to be batted around in pointless debates on Fox News or CNN, but as a fundamental condition of my workplace.
When I hear Chuchill’s defenders adopt a knee-jerk stance of support, I am disappointed. Professor Yellow Bird and Professor Craven should know that Churchill’s violations are not trivial, and are not excused by the good work he may have done on behalf of their cause. Chuchill is discredited, and rightly so, regardless of where this case ends up.
But I am far more concerned about the effectiveness of the right-wing noise machine and its political co-conspirators. Their disingenuousness is obvious, and well represented by Hank Brown’s ludicrous invocation of Paris Hilton. For the record, Paris Hilton was never the target of a full-scale investigation by an institution of the government as a result of her notoriety. Either Mr. Brown knows this, and is insulting our intelligence, or he does not, in which case his political baggage evidently prevents his from even producing a coherent argument on his own behalf.
What Chuchill did is not all right. But what the State of Colorado is doing is worse. It is a cornerstone of the notion of due process that nobody should be subject to unusual government scrutiny or selective prosecution as a result of her constitutionally protected speech. When anyone, including Hank Brown, chips away at that cornserstone, we all become more vulnerable.
I regret that Ward Churchill has become the vehicle for this fight. He is unworthy. But anyone who knows the history of people like Ernesto Miranda knows that we cannot choose our champions. Just our principles.
Unapologetically Tenured, at 9:10 am EDT on May 30, 2007
The analogy to Miranda is one of the better references made on this site. A serial rapist, his conviction was overturned because police interrogators failed to respect his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. He was later killed in a knife fight at a bar. Not exactly the spokesperson we want for due process rights; yet they are all the more important for it.
