Free Speech
Ward Churchill Update
By Natsu Saito
Jun 5, 2005, 11:00am

Reprinted from Transform Columbus Day mailing list

Dear friends and colleagues,

My apologies for not keeping you updated on a more regular basis regarding the ongoing efforts to discredit and/or fire Ward Churchill. Although the national media coverage has abated, the local media continues to attack Ward relentlessly and much of our energy has been absorbed into the current phase of the University's "investigation."
There are a number of recent developments:

Status of the "Investigation":

As you know, in response to the political pressure brought on the University in late January, Interim Chancellor Philip DiStefano formed an ad hoc committee to examine Ward's "every word," to see if he had crossed some mythical boundary of free speech. In late March the ad hoc committee concluded the obvious – that what Ward had written or said publicly was all constitutionally protected expression.

In the meantime, however, it was open season in the media, where all manner of allegations have been thrown about. At first we attempted to respond to them, but soon realized that (a) Ward's responses were not being reported accurately, if at all, and (b) as soon as one round of spurious allegations was rebutted, another took its place. It is an endless game, pursued by forces with apparently endless resources.

Not surprisingly, the University felt it had to take some action against Ward in retaliation for his political positions, regardless of the First Amendment and principles of academic freedom. The Interim Chancellor's committee thus declared it had an "obligation" to investigate the allegations which had emerged and referred several of these to the University's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (SCRM). The SCRM is currently reviewing charges of "academic and ethnic fraud" (discussed in more detail below) and is scheduled to make its initial report by June 23. The SCRM can decide to send any of these allegations to the Privilege and Tenure Committee for further investigation and possible punitive action, including dismissal.

Ward has continued to teach, finishing not only the spring semester but teaching a condensed "Maymester" course as well. He won a 2005 teaching award, voted on by students, but its sponsor (the alumni association) is withholding the award "pending the outcome of the investigation," despite the fact that the allegations have nothing to do with teaching.

Illegitimacy of the SCRM's Current Investigation:

On its face, the continuation of this investigation in any form is unconstitutional, arising as it does from the University's blatant attempt to suppress Ward's constitutionally protected speech. The pretextual nature of the inquiry is further illustrated by the fact that the current allegations are (a) factually unsupported, (b) all based on conduct well over a decade old and, in some cases, previously investigated by the University itself, and (c) come from political adversaries of extremely questionable credibility (to be charitable).

I take the liberty of quoting recent e-mail correspondence from Noam Chomsky to a CU employee which I think embodies the response the University should have made under the circumstances:

************************************
Without reservations, I support Churchill's right to free speech and academic freedom, and regard the attack on him as scurrilous and by now craven cowardice as well, as the state authorities and other critics pretend that the issue is (suddenly) his academic credentials and ethnic origins. That's a real disgrace.

As for his work, I've never read this article [on 9/11] and have no interest in doing so in fact, would not do so as a matter of principle in the present context, for reasons that go back to the Enlightenment origins of defense of freedom of speech. I was interviewed by Colorado newspapers, and told them basically what I've just written. I was then asked what I thought of his earlier work, and told the
truth: that I found it serious and important, stressing again that these comments have precisely nothing to do with the outrageous events now underway.

I have no idea what the plagiarism and other issues are, [but] if the charges were serious, they would have been brought up before. For what it's worth, there's no indication of that in anything of his I read that is, nothing more than is standard in scholarship. . . . . Such matters are sometimes raised in the context of political
persecution, by cowards who are desperately seeking to conceal what they are really doing. Seems pretty transparent in this case. Why now and not before?

Professor Noam Chomsky, e-mail correspondence of April 13, 2005
*********************************

Needless to say, the University has not chosen a principled response of this sort. Despite the illegitimacy of the current process, Ward has submitted to the SCRM a detailed response to each allegation. He has not yet released these responses publicly, preferring to give the Committee a chance to consider them before they are tried in the press. I have, however, attached an excerpt of Ward's cover letter to the Committee and some summary responses to the specific allegations.

The Allegations Currently Being Investigated:

"Ethnic Fraud"
Most offensive, of course, is the charge that Ward fraudulently misrepresented his American Indian identity in order to gain credibility for his scholarly work. First, it must be noted that in 1994 the same political adversaries (these are the people who also accuse Ward of being an FBI agent, a CIA operative, etc.) raised the same issue. At that time the University determined that Ward had legitimately self-identified as an American Indian for employment purposes.

So, the very existence of the current investigation raises interesting questions - is there a different standard of identity for research and employment? If so, what is it? Who gets to decide? And if one isn't informed of the standard to be applied, how could one fraudulently avoid compliance? The University has refused to answer these questions, apparently leaving it up to a randomly selected
faculty committee to function as a racial purity board.

Again, the facts which are a matter of public record are being blatantly ignored. Ward has identified as American Indian since he was a small child, based on his family's understanding of its history. He has been recognized as such by the Indian community in Denver, as well as much broader American Indian communities, for decades. (One
only need view his speech at CU broadcast on C-SPAN to see this.) And he is an enrolled associate (not honorary) member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, a status which requires confirmation of Cherokee descent by the Band's genealogist.

One of the many disturbing consequences of the University deciding that it can adjudicate one's "race" has been the toll taken on the United Keetoowah Band. Initially they responded accurately to inquiries " saying that Ward was an associate member" but were then bombarded by reporters and subjected to an unrelenting e-mail campaign of harassment. Eventually they attempted to allay this pressure by disavowing Ward. This forced him to counter with evidence of his enrollment which, in turn, pushed them into changing their position yet again. (Ward's statement on this question is attached.) In the meantime the Band's already meager resources have been diverted, preempting their delivery of social services and causing turmoil and division. Apparently this is acceptable "collateral damage" in the
eyes of those attempting to silence Ward.

"Academic Fraud"

The SCRM is investigating two sets of "academic fraud" charges. One is misleadingly labeled "plagiarism," and I've attached a summary of Ward's responses on these claims.

The other is allegedly about Ward's interpretation of the U.S. Army's participation in the spreading of smallpox to Indians and about the implementation of "blood quantum" requirements pursuant to the 1887 General Allotment Act. Ward has provided the Committee with plenty of facts to back up his analysis but it's important to note that this is
at most a dispute over historical interpretation, not fraud.

More significantly, these charges are part of an insidious attempt to discredit a particular line of criticism of the sanitized version of American history which is generally taught. Ward, of course, is one of the most prolific scholars in this field; if his scholarship can be discredited, anyone who takes a similar position with respect to the U.S. government's treatment of American Indians will be vulnerable as well.

Related Developments

During this process, CU-Boulder's Department of Ethnic Studies has come under continuous attack. Our faculty, staff and students have been subjected to all manner of harassment, much of it explicitly racist. We have been targeted by local politicians as well as the likes of David Horowitz. Throughout this process, no University official has stepped forward to condemn the racism directed at the
Department or to provide us with any support. I've attached an Open Letter from the Department describing some of this and including a sampling of the e-mails we have received.

Adrienne Anderson, a CU instructor in environmental studies and ethnic studies, has been terminated and her classes cancelled because of her success in exposing the environmentally devastating misconduct of corporations CU is closely affiliated with.

The City of Longmont has harassed and tried to fire one of its employees, Glenn Spagnuolo (not coincidentally one of our co-defendants in the Columbus Day protests), for statements made on a radio talk show in connection with his support of Ward.

One of our students, Dustin Craun, is being prosecuted for attempting to read a statement on behalf of CU students at the February 3 "open meeting" of the CU Board of Regents. (By way of contrast, other CU students who recently chained themselves outside the Chancellor's office to protest sweatshops are not being prosecuted.)

Most significantly, Shareef Aleem, a Denver activist who was forcibly prevented by the police from speaking at the same Regents meeting is charged with felony assault and faces a 16-year prison term. My final attachment is Shareef's statement on this matter; Ward and I urge you to actively support Shareef's defense in any way you can.

The Big Picture

As Ward has said from the beginning, this is not about him; rather, he is the current target of opportunity in a much broader assault on freedom of political expression and action. Karl Rove is well known for his strategy of attacking the enemy's strongest point, not its weakest, and Ward is a strong one. If he can be silenced, who won't be?

In one sense it's part of the larger attempt to discredit all of the political movements of the 1960s and '70s which directly challenged the status quo. Young people who want to be politically active today are being told that all of those efforts failed; that only approved and symbolic (i.e., ineffective) forms of protest will be allowed.

It is also part of a pervasive movement to undermine critical thinking in educational institutions. Governor Owens and numerous Colorado legislators are active in Lynne Cheney's American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) and in David Horowitz' attempts to stifle "liberal" professors in the name of students' rights to "academic freedom." Academics around the country are being targeted, as evidenced by the recent "investigations" of Professor Joseph Massad and other Middle Eastern scholars at Columbia. As we have examined the purging of other intellectuals, the same patterns emerge - widespread media frenzy, endless rounds of unfounded allegations, a process designed to wear down those who advocate critical perspectives and discredit them by any means necessary.

The University of Colorado has capitulated to political pressure and there is no sign that it will not continue to do so. We cannot take any comfort in the fact that the University has acknowledged that Ward Churchill's speech is constitutionally protected. It is, in fact, far more dangerous to allow dissent to be silenced through the subterfuge of investigating various "frauds." The pressure continues; those who fueling the attacks, such as our local Clear Channel radio station, seem to have unlimited resources to spend on this campaign. So, we fully expect to face yet another "investigation" after the current allegations have been refuted -- at which point you'll likely be getting updates about our federal lawsuit.

The good news is that we have had amazing support at CU, in the Denver community, and around the country. Despite well-organized rightwing campaigns, Ward's e-mail has consistently been more supportive than not. Our students and the Ethnic Studies Department have remained strong despite all of the attempts to divide us. Tens of thousands of people have signed petitions of support, thousands have written letters, and numerous organizations of academics have denounced CU's investigation of Ward. Despite nothing but negative media spin, everywhere we go there is evidence of strong grassroots support, from security personnel to parking lot attendants, waiters, and random people on the street. As a Delta skycap told me last week, "you don't
have to be clairvoyant to see through the bullsh*t."

Again, thank you for your interest and support. If you have any questions or would like more information, please feel free to contact me.

Natsu Taylor Saito
June 3, 2005


Attachments:
1. Excerpts from Ward Churchill cover letter to Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.
2. Ward Churchill Response to Statement of the United Keetoowah Band.
3. Ward Churchill Statement on allegations of "Academic Fraud"
4. Open Letter from Department of Ethnic Studies
5. Statement of Shareef Aleem


------------------------------------------

1. Excerpts from Ward Churchill's May 16, 2005 letter to the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct accompanying his detailed responses to the allegations:

***********************

The Laws of the Regents, which constitute the cornerstone of the contract each of us has with the University, define "academic freedom" as the "freedom to inquire, discover, publish and teach truth as the faculty member sees it" (Rule 5.D.1(B)), and state that "all members of the academic community have a responsibility to protect the university as a forum for the free expression of ideas"� (Rule 5.D.1(E)). Furthermore, under these Laws, faculty members have a responsibility to "exert themselves to the limit of their intellectual capacities in scholarship, research, writing, and speaking"� and "while they fulfill this responsibility, their efforts should not be subjected to direct or indirect pressures or interference from within the university and the university will resist to the utmost such pressures or interference when exerted from without." (Rule 5.D.2, emphasis added.)

As you know, this inquiry arose out of the fact that in late January 2005 the local, and subsequently national, media launched an extensive campaign highlighting one phrase of an essay in the nature of an op-ed piece which I wrote as a "gut reaction"� to the events of September 11, 2001. It was published on an obscure internet website on September 12, 2001 and was barely noticed for over three years. The local media highlighted it in January primarily in response to the acquittals in the Columbus Day protest cases. Right-wing pundits, most prominently Bill O'Reilly, picked it up as part of their larger campaign against "liberal bias" in academia. Colorado Governor Bill Owens and numerous other politicians immediately called for me to be fired.

Having my vita, you know that I have been employed by the University of Colorado since 1978. In 1991 I was hired as a full-time professor, with tenure, in the Department of Ethnic Studies at the Boulder campus. I was appointed at that rank because at that time I had six books in print. Subsequently I have published another fifteen books, several dozen book chapters and over one hundred articles, and given hundreds of public lectures. I have received several writing awards and as of 2001 I was the most cited scholar in my field. I have served on numerous University committees and as Department Chair, and received many awards from this University, including the President's University Service Award, the Robert L. Stearns Alumni Award for Outstanding Service and Achievement, the Annual Umoja Award for Staff Promotion of Diversity in Higher Education, the Thomas Jefferson Award for Outstanding Service and Achievement, the Teaching Excellence Award from the College of Arts and Sciences.

Despite my more than quarter-century record of exemplary service to the University, no University official made any statement in my defense or attempted to curb the media feeding frenzy. Instead, the University's reactions encouraged a microscopic and highly biased media foray into every detail of my life. My privacy and security, as well as that of my immediate and extended family and my Department, were rendered non-existent, and anyone who ever had scholarly or personal differences with me was encouraged to make allegations to the University regarding my work, my political positions, and my personal life.

Completely disregarding their own Laws pertaining to academic freedom, the Board of Regents convened an “emergency” meeting. At that meeting Interim Chancellor Philip Distefano denounced my views as "repugnant." The Interim Chancellor also announced that he was launching a 30-day investigation, which "despite his explicitly stated bias" he would conduct in concert with Law School Dean David Getches and Arts and Sciences Dean Todd Gleeson, into everything I have published or publicly stated to see if any of it "exceeded the boundaries" of constitutionally protected free speech.

I was never officially notified by anyone in the University about the Regents meeting or the ad hoc committees "investigation."� I was never presented with any allegations or provided any opportunity to respond to any of the charges. Without having consulted with or even notified me, on March 24 Chancellor Distefano convened a press conference at which he publicly announced the "findings"� of the Ad Hoc Committee and made copies of its "Report"� available to the media. Only after I demanded it, was the Report finally sent to me on March 31, 2005. This constituted the first official communication from any University official to me concerning this matter.

As you know, the Report concluded that all of my speech and publications in question constituted constitutionally protected political expression. It went on, however, to reference a number of allegations generated by the publicity surrounding this investigation into my speech - the allegations now being reviewed by your Committee. As discussed in further detail in my attached response, each of these allegations lacks substance on its own merits. More significantly, however, this entire phase of the inquiry is pretextual, arising as it did out of political pressure arising from my now-admittedly protected speech. The process to date has violated not only my rights, but threatens those of all of the faculty of the University of Colorado and, indeed, sets a dangerous precedent for academics nationally.

Because this Committee is now charged with an inquiry “designed to separate allegations deserving further investigation from frivolous, unjustified, or clearly mistaken allegations” (Operating Rules and Procedures of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, Section V), I am providing the attached information which I believe will allow you to prevent this miscarriage of justice from escalating. In so doing, however, I do not concede the legitimacy or legality of any aspect of this investigation or relinquish any of my rights to seek redress for the violations of my rights under the rules of this University, applicable statutes, or the Constitutions of the State of Colorado and the United States.

************************

To contact the SCRM:
Professor Joseph Rosse, Chair
Standing Committee on Research Misconduct
University of Colorado at Boulder
26 UCB
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0026
Joseph.Rosse@Colorado.edu


***************************

2. Response to the "UKB Statement Regarding Ward Churchill"
Ward Churchill
May 18, 2005

On May 17, 2005 I was informed that the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians (UKB) has issued a Statement disavowing its relationship with me. This Statement contains many assertions which are categorically untrue: that I "asked" to be enrolled in the Keetoowah Band, that I was issued only an "honorary"� membership in the Keetoowah Band, that my Cherokee lineage was never confirmed by the UKB Membership Committee, that I was never placed on the Band Roll.

Each of these statements is documentably false.

I did not "ask" to be enrolled; I was asked to apply.

In May 1994, I was enrolled as Associate Member of the UKB. In June, I was issued a Band Card listing Roll Number as being R7627. As was stated clearly and repeatedly at a Keetoowah Band Council meeting conducted on June 4, 1994, during which my enrollment was discussed (and of which I have a complete record on videotape)Associate Membership in the UKB did require proof of Cherokee descent, and mine was confirmed not once, but twice by the Membership Committee before I was issued my Band Card and placed on the UKB Membership Roll.

It was also made clear during the course of this meeting, and repeatedly so, that Associate and honorary memberships in the UKB were not the same thing. Then-Principal Chief John Ross was also quoted in both Ojibwe News and Indian Country Today as emphasizing the clear distinction between Associate and honorary memberships shortly thereafter.

My status did not change when the Band stopped enrolling Associate Members on July 9, 1994. As recently as February 3, 2005, UKB Membership Committee member Ernestine Barry was quoted in the Denver press as acknowledging that the Band "no longer offers associate memberships, although it didn't revoke any existing membership."�

When the "controversy" surrounding my comments concerning 9/11 first became a matter of national attention earlier this year, UKB representatives repeatedly confirmed, both publicly and privately, that I was an enrolled Associate Member. Moreover, I personally called UKB Principal Chief George Wycliffe in February 2005 and he assured me that there had been no change in my status.

The United Keetoowah Band is a sovereign people. As such, just as it held the rightful prerogative to enroll me as a member in 1994, it holds the right to disenroll me in 2005. By the same token, it would be well within its rights to request that I relinquish my membership (i.e., "resign"�).

What it does not have a right to do is falsify history at its own convenience.

Insofar as I've not been notified that I have been disenrolled, I can only assume that I remain an Associate Member of the United Keetoowah Band. Therefore, I cannot reasonably be accused of "fraud"� for having represented myself as such.

Further, even if I were to be disenrolled at this juncture, it would in no way affect the fact of my "Indianness,"� a matter officially confirmed by the Keetoowahs themselves in 1994.


******************************************

3. Ward Churchill: Statement on Allegations of "Academic Fraud"
June 2, 2005

Since January 2005 the University of Colorado (CU) has been under tremendous political pressure to fire me for my political opinions. Realizing, however, that it would be illegal to do so under both the First Amendment and the Regents' rules on academic freedom, the University is instead trying to discredit me with media-driven allegations of "academic fraud."�

Certain of these allegations have been referred by the ad hoc committee convened by Interim Chancellor Philip DiStefano to CU's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. This process is clearly unconstitutional, a direct result of political disagreement with my protected speech. The University's claim that it has an "obligation" to investigate charges arising in the course of its initial review of my writings and lectures is clearly pretextual.

There are two kinds of "academic fraud" claims. The first centers on my interpretation of the U.S. government's dealings with American Indian nations. I have responded by providing the Committee with extensive facts supporting my perspective. More to the point, however, disputes over historical interpretation are precisely what scholars are supposed to engage in. To pretend that they are evidence of "fraud"� is to undermine the essence of academic freedom.

The second set of such claims, to which I have also responded in detail, have been misleadingly cast as "plagiarism,"� which CU's Academic Integrity Policy defines as "the use of another's ideas or words without appropriate acknowledgment."� This allegation is categorically false.

Tellingly, both "plagiarism"� charges refer to works which have been in print for well over a decade. One charge is based on an essay which I did not author, printed in a book which I did not edit. My function in helping compile that essay was to take pieces, written by others, and ensure that the text flowed smoothly. This is known in publishing as copy editing, and the copy editor is not responsible for the content.

The other charge is based on the similarity between passages in work I have authored and work written under others' names. It derives from John LaVelle, a longtime political adversary, who accused me not of plagiarizing, but of writing chapters in "The State of Native America" that were attributed to other authors. (To turn this into a charge of plagiarism, as CU Law School Professor Paul Campos has done is, itself, to engage in academic fraud.)

Anyone who reads the passages in question can readily see that I wrote them. I authored several essays that were included in that book under other names, but that is neither plagiarism nor any other violation of existing academic standards. CU's policies require compliance with “established standards regarding author names on publications'� and to find those standards one must look at the relevant discipline - in my case, history.

The closest one can find to a policy on this matter is the American Historical Association's Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct, under which historians "should always acknowledge assistance received from colleagues, students, research assistants, and others, and give due credit to collaborators."� As this indicates, any ethical problem is with those who took credit for my work, not with me for failing to demand credit.

The bottom line is that there is no policy which I violated by allowing another person to take credit for material I wrote. If the University wishes to create one it can certainly do so, but it cannot make one up after the fact and apply it to me retroactively. Also, it cannot make or enforce rules which are not applied to all professors.

These contorted efforts to discredit my reputation simply illustrate the larger attempt to penalize me for exercising my First Amendment rights. Bowing to political pressure by subjecting me to an endless investigative process is not only unconstitutional, but undermines academic freedom for all scholars who challenge the status quo.


************************************

4. An Open Letter from the Department of Ethnic Studies,
University of Colorado at Boulder to the Board of Regents,
President Betsy Hoffman and Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano

The University of Colorado's official policy on diversity states:

Diversity among students, faculty, and staff is fundamental to the University of Colorado as it fulfills its mission to provide a quality education to the citizens of the state. A vision of the University of Colorado as an institution that promotes a free flow of ideas and perspectives, values diverse viewpoints and interactions, and encourages constructive engagement across racial, gender, sexual orientation and other lines of difference is central to this mission. Diversity at the University of Colorado includes populations historically underrepresented and disadvantaged by virtue of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, disability, nationality, and religion. To fulfill its mission, CU must develop purposeful recruitment and retention strategies for a diverse academic community.

We in the Department of Ethnic Studies (DES) feel a particular responsibility to fulfill this mission. The purpose of Ethnic Studies as a discipline is to introduce the diverse perspectives of historically underrepresented communities into the curriculum, and we offer interdisciplinary courses in African American, American Indian, Asian American, Chicano, Comparative Ethnic, and American Studies. By definition, we must counter the standard "canon"� of the humanities and social sciences, and academic freedom is essential to this endeavor.

The Laws of the Regents (Article5, Part D) recognize that we have not only the right but the responsibility to engage in such critical analysis:
. . . "academic freedom"� is defined as the freedom to inquire, discover, publish and teach truth as the faculty member sees it . . .
. . .academic freedom requires that members of the faculty must have complete freedom to study, to learn, to do research, and to communicate the results of these pursuits to others. . . .
[Faculty members] . . . should not be subjected to direct or indirect pressures or interference from within the university, and the university will resist to the utmost such pressures or interference when exerted from without (emphasis added).

For more than thirty years the University has expressed concern about its lack of racial and ethnic diversity. Large sums of money have been spent on cosmetic efforts and committees have repeatedly been appointed to study the problem but the recommendations of those committees have consistently been disregarded. After all these years, only about 15% of the faculty and the student body are persons of color; and only 1% of the full professors in Arts & Sciences at CU-Boulder are women of color.

Ethnic Studies is the only department on campus with a truly racially and ethnically diverse faculty. We offer the only institutionalized alternative to an overwhelmingly eurocentric curriculum, and have provided a safe haven for many students in what they perceive to be an otherwise hostile environment. The Department's predecessor unit, the Center for Studies of Ethnicity and Race in America (CSERA) was formed in the late-1980s and soon attracted a stellar faculty of national repute, including Manning Marable, Vine Deloria, Jr., Evelyn Hu DeHart, and Ward Churchill. Of these only Ward Churchill remains, and the institution is making every effort to drive him out.

The Department itself came into being in 1995, with an initial core of younger but highly promising faculty members, including Joy James, Jualynne Dodson, Lane Hirabayashi, David Pellow and Lisa Park. All left, largely as a result of the lack of institutional support and resources provided the Department. Having rebuilt the Department for the third time, we are again under siege.
Since late January, the Ethnic Studies Department and individuals within it have been publicly and personally denigrated. At the height of the media frenzy, the Department received about 1000 e-mails and dozens of phone calls each day, many explicitly racist and/or threatening. We have a wonderful, incredibly dedicated staff. Already overloaded, these individuals, including our student assistant, have had to cope with this onslaught.

Despite repeated requests, the University has offered no public defense of the Department, given no support to our already overworked staff, and provided no additional security in the face of threats to students, staff and faculty.

To give just one small example, campus police were recently sent to pressure DES staff about taking down a painting created by youth in an anti-gang program in which "stop the lynchings" is superimposed on an American flag. Shortly thereafter, the campus police simply stood by and watched while a local resident prominently displayed a picket sign which falsely accused Ward Churchill of advocating that people "Rape B*tcher� and Lynch N*ggers."

Our students have been subjected to racist communications and threats, as have our faculty. After some incidents targeting students received widespread media coverage, the Regents and the Administration claimed "outrage,"� yet an actively hostile environment which encourages such attacks has been fostered by the institution's own conduct..

The University is well aware that Ward Churchill and other members of the Department have been subjected to death threats, threats of violence and overtly racist attacks. It could have publicly condemned these threats of violence and expressions of racial hostility. Instead, its stunning silence has effectively empowered the attackers to continue.

Such overt racism is closely linked to attacks on academic freedom. Ward Churchill is the most prolific and cited scholar in his field, an enormously popular teacher, and the recipient of numerous CU teaching and service awards. Faced with politically motivated assaults on Prof. Churchill's speech, there are many steps that University officials could have taken to diffuse the situation. The institution could have highlighted its particular responsibility to defend free speech and to promote diversity of opinion, or noted Prof. Churchill's scholarly achievements and his 25 years of exemplary service to the institution.
Instead, University officials violated the Regents' own laws on academic freedom, denounced Prof. Churchill's constitutionally protected speech, disparaged his reputation, denied him any sort of due process, and announced that his racial identity is to be determined by committee.

As you well know, such attacks have not been limited to Ward Churchill. After working with our Department for more than a decade, Adrienne Anderson's contract was terminated and her courses, which were cross-listed in Ethnic Studies, eliminated as a result of political pressure, without DES ever being consulted. A senior faculty member' sabbatical was also denied. The obvious lack of institutional support for the Department has seriously hampered our ability to recruit new faculty, and is raising questions about our ability to retain the faculty we have.

Last week a sign was pasted on the door to our building, "warning"� the public that the views expressed therein did in any way represent those of the University. Is this true? Are we simply being tolerated until we can be eliminated? We have attached a small sampling of e-mails and letters which we believe illustrate that a strong Ethnic Studies program is needed now more than ever.

As the Regents and the top administrators of this University, you have tremendous influence over the future of this institution. If you want Ethnic Studies to disappear, intend to chill the speech of all professors, and wish to actively discourage the recruitment of students and faculty of color, you need only continue on your current path. We hope this is not the case and offer to work with you to proactively change - not "study"� - the climate on campus.

Department of Ethnic Studies *
University of Colorado at Boulder
April 25, 2005

* This letter was approved by consensus at a faculty meeting from which two members were absent.

WHY WE NEED ETHNIC STUDIES
While we have received expressions of support from tens of thousand of people around the country, we also think it important to note the racism and intolerance that lies so close below the surface. Following are excerpts from e-mails and letters received by the Department of Ethnic Studies, Ward Churchill and other faculty and staff between January 31 and April 15, 2005.

They are not the most hateful, threatening or obscene that we have received, but particularly reflect the racism, sexism, and lack of historical understanding that we work to counter. Other than the asterisks inserted in bold, the spelling and grammar are from the original correspondence.

Ed Note: The FOL editors have decided not to reprint the items identified above, not because they are offensive and in poor taste (which they are) but because it is thought that it serves no useful purpose to give a forum here to this point of view which is more than adequately served by local newspapers, radio programs and television.

*************************

5. Call for Defense of Denver Activist Shareef Aleem

On February 3rd, 2005, a Denver activist was targeted and attacked by campus police at a Board of Regents meeting convened to discuss the University of Colorado's intended action against Ward Churchill. Shareef Aleem went to this meeting because it was advertised as an open meeting, and he wanted to film for Denver Community Television and show support for the students dissent against education cuts and fee hikes and their protest of attacks on Ward Churchill, a professor who blamed U.S. foreign policy for leading to the 9/11 attacks. Aleem stood up in the meeting after one activist had been asked to leave for openly addressing the Regents. He reiterated that the meeting was advertised as being public and stated, "Is this a free country or not? Do we live in a democracy or not? If not, let's stop calling it that.�" Campus cops then pushed aside an older Black woman and began grabbing Aleem, who told them to leave him alone and not touch him. He said he had a right to be there and that the students should be allowed to speak. Shareef was grabbed by cops, pulled down on top of one, had his hands bound and was shot in the neck with a taser. He has since been charged with second-degree assault on an officer.

We are asking for national, and even, international support for this anti-racist activist who has challenged the brutal police in Denver and the surrounding metropolitan areas. This case is a political one because of the fact that Shareef showed support for the students who were expressing their dissent to the right-wing attacks on campuses across the country trying to silence progressive voices, and because Shareef has been so active against police brutality. His case is an attempt to silence him and his activism and to threaten those that stand by him and his actions. Also, the threat of up to 16 years in prison is a real threat to his and his family's well being.

We are asking that people deluge the judge presiding his trial and the prosecuting District Attorney and let them know that we will not let Shareef be victimized and demand that the charges be dropped.

In defense of Aleem, send emails to defendshareef@yahoo.com and cards or money to pay for his attorney or letters of support in care of Aleem to 4860 Chambers Road, P.O. Box 173. Denver, CO 80239.

Letters of protest can also be sent to Judge Michael A. Cox, Adams County Justice Center, 1100 Judicial Center Dr., Brighton, CO 80601, or to Don Quick, 17th Judicial District Attorney, 1000 Judicial Center Dr., Suite 100, Brighton, CO 80601

################

******

Fair Use Notice: There is no attempt here to usurp any copyright but only to distribute useful and educational information to a non profit audience.

© Copyright 2000-2008 by Fountain of Light