Ward Churchill Fired for Academic Misconduct

University of Colorado Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano has come to a decision with regard to Ward Churchill. The money sentence from a long announcement: “Today, I issued to Professor Churchill a notice of intent to dismiss him from his faculty position at the University of Colorado, Boulder.”

While I strongly disagreed with some of my conservative colleagues who thought Churchill should have been fired for some of his outrageous political statements, and am a bit queasy that those controversies led to the investigation of the misconduct for which Churchill has now been fired, I nonetheless agree with DiStefano’s call here. Indeed, Churchill’s transgressions are quite severe and he has no place on a university campus.
________

Related:

FILED UNDER: Education, Uncategorized, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Steven Plunk says:

    It was my impression that his statement led others outside the university to look closely at his record which then led to accusations of misconduct. The university was then obligated to launch it’s own formal investigation leading to the firing.

    If a person, such as Churchill, has a checkered past and wants it to stay under wraps then it would be a good idea to keep a low profile rather than grandstanding outlandish juvenile positions. He got what he deserved.

  2. Elmo says:
  3. I believe that there had been some questions raised (e.g by Indian tribes) on some of Ward’s misconduct. It’s when he went national that the investigations got serious. You can only sweep the dirt under the rug so long when you’re in the national spotlight.

  4. McKreck says:

    I think the “queasiness” is a little misplaced: had Churchill had any virtues as a scholar he would have survived the investigation. Having no such virtues, he could not survive the scrutiny of the spotlight he sought.

    I don’t think the public should be discouraged from complaining about scholarly flaws in an academic’s work. The university doesn’t have to listen to them, but the public shouldn’t have to censor itself out of deference to a person with tenure.

  5. don surber says:

    Why was a lying, plagiarizing fake Indian given tenure?

  6. Anderson says:

    If a person, such as Churchill, has a checkered past and wants it to stay under wraps then it would be a good idea to keep a low profile rather than grandstanding outlandish juvenile positions.

    Exactly. If you’re dumb enough to plagiarize, you’re probably not smart enough to cover up your plagiarism. Just do your own damn work, already!

  7. Bubba Franks says:

    Fire the stupid, ignorant, moronic racist