http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_6014097

al knight | columnist

CU could salvage its reputation

By Al Knight
Denver Post Columnist
Article Last Updated: 05/29/2007 08:36:31 PM MDT

University of Colorado President Hank Brown has done the university and the
state a great favor by recommending the firing of discredited Professor
Ward Churchill.

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.

Churchill continues to treat his case as though it were simply another
example of an Indian (whether real or self-identified) receiving
mistreatment at the hands of the government.

His attorney, David Lane, says the university's actions over the last two
years are nothing more than a "rubber stamp" by an organization that wants
to fire Ward Churchill. On the contrary, the university has given Churchill
every opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of academic
misconduct. In addition, everyone - other than Churchill and Lane - has had
to put up with the prolonged process imposed by university rules with no
assurance that it would lead to the current result. To be told now that
this long delay, which was necessary to protect Churchill's rights, was
meaningless, foreordained and unworthy of respect is outrageous.

Lane continues to insist that any decision to fire Churchill will be taken
to court. So what? The university would lose all credibility if it decided
to forgive Churchill's conduct simply because he remains unrepentant and is
represented by an aggressive lawyer.

Brown's letter puts this matter in the proper context when he cites the
three reasons why Churchill must be dismissed. One of those, on the
interests of the entire state, deserves to be quoted in full:

"Professor Churchill's misconduct impacts the University's academic
reputation and the reputation of its faculty. The integrity of the work of
the faculty is central to the University's academic mission. And, as a
publicly supported institution, the public must be able to trust that the
University's resources will be dedicated to academic endeavors carried out
according to the highest possible standards. Professor Churchill's conduct,
if allowed to stand, would erode the university's integrity and public
trust."

It is inconceivable that the Board of Regents would disagree. All that
remains is the inevitable filing of the lawsuit. In the meantime, the
university can reclaim its reputation.

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@...) is a former member of The
Post's editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.