With support from the University of Richmond

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Al Knight: Decision on Ward Churchill Correct


Brown's decision, which is contained in a thoughtful, 10-page letter, could stand alone as the historical record of this sorry chapter in CU history. In it, he outlines the incredibly complex process that has been used during the last two years to get the university to the point where it is able to reach a conclusion.

It is easily possible to imagine, say, the closing of a large factory and the displacement of its entire work force that would consume less time and paperwork.

Ward Churchill is no victim. He has been justly accused of conduct that "falls below the minimum standards of professional integrity" and he has had endless opportunities to defend himself against those allegations. He has failed.

Brown points out that no fewer than 25 faculty members (inside and outside the university) have been involved in the review of Churchill's academic work. Each concluded that Churchill had committed "deliberate and repeated research misconduct."

Brown's letter is notable not just for the details of the offenses actually committed by Churchill but also because he includes two instances where the review committee's findings didn't go against him.

Brown pointed out that Churchill deliberately mischaracterized the content of two federal laws. The first of these was the General Allotment Act of 1887. Churchill said it imposed a blood quantum requirement for aid. It does not. The second was the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990, sponsored by former Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Churchill claimed it had a blood quantum requirement. It does not.

Brown knows that it doesn't require great scholarship to accurately report the contents of official federal statutes. Brown therefore disagreed with the university's earlier decision not to include these clear misrepresentations as part of the case for Churchill's dismissal. The university president pointed out Churchill's misrepresentations were plainly made to "support one of his central academic premises" and were a knowing attempt by him to evade the truth....