I don't read Justin as lamenting the Bellesisles' situation or forgiving him. As for Carrol's comments, it's perfectly possible to hold two thoughts in your head at once: that it sucks that WC was the subject of this attack _and_ that WC is not a scholar and that, on my view, by not dealing in a low-profile way with this, he purposefully and repeatedly lied to his supporters, making them belief he'd never done anything wrong. He knew he'd done something wrong, and yet he continued to call attention to himself. Bellesidles' was under political attack as well, but he did not bleat around the country about how wronged he was. Churchill lied to _us_.
As I said yesterday at PEN-l, his behavior toward us is a disgrace that I won't forgive. I'm happy to die declared a not leftist that you are ashamed of. I refuse to accept _your_ moral framework on this one.
And John, I don't think you understand something.
When you go before these committees you are effectively going before "the law." The professions police themselves. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, they petitioned for that right, lobbying the government in the US to stay out of their business (after all, what would happen if the Gov was in charge of it all? ) The professional associated promised to be good boys and girls and that they'd do all they could to make sure their members behaved correctly, thoroughly understanding their responsibility for this huge public trust. (see my essays at the blog on Charles Bosk)
As I asked Charles Brown: would you advise a client to stand before a judge with his shirt untucked and copping an attitude? Would you, John?
The situation is analogous. Read the conclusion of the report. Churchill can only be described as one defiant dudeness. Here are few ways in which he flipped the bird at the entire academic community and, specficially, at the committee:
1. quote from Churchill about how one goes about scholarly work:
---- I've got this general understanding. You say, but can that general understanding be confirmed? Well, I'm looking to confirm it. I'm also looking for information, and I told you this at the outset, I'm looking to prove it's true. ----
The committee: "But as a scholar, one must "look" not only to confirm one's hopes, but also to face the possibility that the evidence may disconfirm them. And even if one finds more evidence for the truth of one's beliefs than evidence against them, all of the evidence must be acknowledged and treated fairly."
As an aside John: this is embarrassing, that Churchill has no clue. But he DOES have clue. So why'd he say it? My guess? Because he didn't want to say that he knew otherwise. yet, his own writing and CV indicate he knows otherwise. This = Defiance.
2. In 1999, a historian criticized WC's work. WC acknowledged that he read in 2003, four years later. He also said that he didn't think it was important to pay attn to critics. He published an article in 2003 correcting his working, radically changing the earlier claim. did he acknowledge his critic. No.
This is flipping the bird to say: I don't care about what anyone else says and I'm too good to engage with my critics.
3. When he was caught out ghostwriting, he apparently wrote an engaging and even 'funny' essay about CLR JAmes who ghostwrote. He also said ghostwriting happens in the academy all the time.
Again, the bird is flipping. This isn't comparing apples to oranges. This is comparing apples to spark plugs. He wrote five articles which junior colleagues took credit for on their CVs. He used them to prove something he couldn't prove.
4. Additionally, Churchill continued to submit bogus crap in his defense. (c.f Thomas Brown at Inside Higher Ed, article The footnote police v Ward Churchill)
5. He agreed with the committee that some of his claims were wrong as they'd described them. Nonetheless, he plans on publishing the same essay, only slightly changed, anyway. It apparently needs a significant overhaul.
You probably know Churchill better than I. Do you think, had someone sat him down, he'd have listened, like how you listen to an attorney about how to behave in a courtroom? Do you think, if someone had explained to him how important it was that he dealt gracefully with the rules of deference and demeanor, he would have done so?
My guess? He would have had said "fuck'm" if someone had told him to chill out.
A lot of people think they should say fuck'm. that's fine, but just like a defendant saying "fuck'em" in the courtroom, the judge ain't gonna ask you out for drinks after the trial.
When you cop that attitude toward your own peers? it just makes no sense. You are basically telling them that you don't give a shit about them and the rest of the scholars and you'd prefer to tell funny stories about CLR James as a legit reason why you ghostwrite 5 articles and allow junior colleagues to pass them off as their work!
You know as well as I do that, no matter what the committee was about, a lot of people do have a hard time casting out one of their own. It is very painful. These are human beings. If they'd seen him indicate any humility about all of this, my guess is that they wouldn't have gotten so frickin' pissed. What do you do when someone has been seriously wrong and cops nothing but attitude about it? Are you inclined to forgive him or are you inclined to, figuratively speaking, "throw the book at him?"
What happens when they are humbled before you? Well, most good and decent people are inclined to forgiveness.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org