jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
> I have no problem with the report and the way it
> represents Churchill with regards to his fabrications
> concerning the Mandan people. I do have a problem
> with anyone who claims this somehow proves the
> spreading of the disease is an accident. There is
> no proof that it was an accident. There is some evidence
> which suggests it may have been deliberate or at the
> least no caution was taken to prevent it because there
> was actual hatred of the Mandan by some of the
> parties involved.
This whole discussion has focused wrongly. The Investigation was corrupt from the beginning, and Churchill was wrong only in making a reply. Here is a composite post from two I sent on Pen-L and an additional point made by Michael Lebowitz.
*******
>From Carrol Cox (Post 1):
I'm utterly uninterested in the details of the case because, from the viewpoint of either academic freedom or left politics those details are irrelevant.
Here is the principle that the case establishes, and it is a vicious principle:
The _origin_ of an investigation, no matter how illegitimate, no matter how poisonous nd contrary to all concepts of academic freedom, is irrelevant.
That is the line we have to defend. No Academic investigations triggered by outside political interference.
I am somewhat ashamed of the posters on this list and on lbo-talk who have utterly ignored the poisoned roots of this investigation and have contented themselves with the details of the investigation itself. But those details should be thrown out as irrelevant by anyone who believes in academic freedom. They should be thrown out particularly by anyone who accepts the liberal emphasis on procedural legitimacy. The procedures in this case were an outrage from the beginning.
---
>From Carrol Cox (Post 2):
Carrol Cox wrote: Here is the principle that the case establishes, and it is a vicious principle: [clip]
Let me put this another way: what the Committee _should_ have done, assuming that the Committee was actually committed to the principles of academic freedom rather than to pacifying outside political pressure.
Their report should have not been more than one or two paragraphs in length.
First Paragraph: An inquiry into the source of the call which created the Committee.
Second Paragraph: The Committee rules that there existed no legitimate reason to convene this Committee. We therefore dissolve the investigation. Carrol
---
Michael a. Lebowitz then posted with an important addition:
I agree with Carrol's points. It should have been Ward Churchill's position and, even more, the position of Colorado university faculty and the AAUP.
Michael
--------
And if it should have been the AAUP position, even more should it have been the position of every poster on this list.
The discussion of the genocide covering 500 years in the "New World" (to which you contribute above) is important, but should simply be separated from the Churchill investigation. And though Churchill erred in responding to the substance of the corrupt investigation, we should not continue that error. Focus on the corruption of the investigation.
If you wish to check the Pen-L archives, the subject line to search is: "Churchill Fallout: It’s About Academic Freedom." This particular thread is based on an important statement by Professor Dennis Baron, of the University of Illinois, posted to Pen-L by Lou Proyect. See
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/05/26/baron
for Baron's statment.
Carrrol