I think Churchill should be fired. Should have happened years ago. The guy fabricated a genocide that wasn't, among numerous other offenses against the academy's norms and against ethical practice in general. He's an embarassment to any side foolish enough to claim him. Didn't I make my position on that clear?
I do support Churchill's claim to academic freedom, and I think he'll win on that. I would prefer that CU had been responsible enough to have dealt with him sooner, on the right issues--without any prodding from the political class on the wrong issues--because I think the correct outcome would have been more likely to happen that way. Because CU failed to act, the situation is a lot messier than it needed to be.
Doug Henwood wrote:
>Yup. Churchill isn't known primarily as a scholar, but as a political
>figure. He's not in trouble for fucking up a footnote - as Jon Wiener
>shows in his book Historians in Trouble (I'll be posting the radio
>show with my interview with Wiener in a day or two), rightwingers can
>screw up massively and suffer no consequences, but a leftwinger can
>get fired over relatively minor errors.
I agree with this thesis of Wiener's, although he oversells the case. Especially so wrt Bellisles, who--like Churchill--did a lot more than get a footnote wrong. There is an interesting parallel between the two, in that support and opposition for each initially cleaved more along political lines instead of along lines of truth and evidence. Historians gradually withdrew support for Bellisles once the magnitude of his errors became apparent. The Churchill case is more complicated, in that it's conflated with issues of academic freedom. I think more scholars will go to the wall for Churchill than they did for Bellisles, which is as it should be.
Also, I think that Wiener disregards the fact that massive screw-ups can be done by almost anyone of any persuasion and gotten away with, in the academy and elsewhere. I would guess that there have been many more dishonest academics who've gotten away with it, compared to the number who've been punished, regardless of their politics.
Have you read Hoffer's recent book on historians in trouble? It's more scholarly and less politically-motivated than Wiener's.
John Thornton wrote:
>I doubt I could find a better example of opportunism were I to go searching
>for one. It
>must be quite an ego boost to know how, in spite of criticism from the left
>and support
>from the right, you're furthering the cause of progressives everywhere and
>everyone
>else is simply too dense to see the wisdom in your path.
Not everyone is too dense to see the wisdom of telling the truth and setting the record straight. I've received far more support from the scholarly community than I have criticism. I'm not surprised to find myself demonized by some for correcting the record on Churchill's fabricated genocide. I did rather expect that to happen, and that it may well hurt me on my next job search. I wouldn't be surprised if I get hurt by this controversy more than Churchill does.
So "opportunism" is not the right word, unless you believe that a vast right wing conspiracy is paying me off somehow. Aside from the critical comments on my research that some people have emailed me--and that some of this list's subscribers have generously posted--thanks guys--I haven't yet reaped any personal benefit from this. I expect to get even more grief from the "holocaust denier" ad hominemists than I have already. You're shooting at the messenger here.