Ward Churchill at UW Whitewater?

[Robert Braun]

From the UW WW website:

Statement regarding the scheduled visit of UC-Boulder Professor Ward Churchill:

UW-Whitewater Chancellor Jack Miller is conducting a review of a scheduled guest lecture on March 1 by Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder at the center of a major controversy over his remarks about the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

Churchill is scheduled to speak as part of Native Pride Week, an event sponsored by the student Native American Cultural Awareness Association, the College of Letters and Sciences and other campus groups. The professor has been the subject of a national controversy since late January over statements he made in a fall 2001 essay about the 9/11 attacks. In that essay, Churchill likened the victims of the World Trade Center attacks to “little Eichmanns” — a reference to German Nazi leader Adolph Eichmann.

Miller is seeking input from a variety of sources, including the sponsoring student groups, university faculty and staff, First Amendment attorneys, and police and safety officials with the university. He has requested more information from Churchill directly. The review will be used by Miller to ultimately make an informed decision about whether to continue Churchill’s lecture. The results of Miller’s review and the rationale for his decision will be posted on the university’s Web site later this week.

UW-Whitewater is one of several universities faced with a decision about sponsoring a lecture from Churchill, who is a frequent speaker on Native American issues. Hamilton College in New York cancelled a Feb. 3 forum with Churchill after the visit prompted death threats. UC-Boulder first canceled a speech from Churchill scheduled for Feb. 8 but reversed its decision later that day. Eastern Washington University and Wheaton College in Massachusetts also cited safety in canceling upcoming Churchill talks.

Since apparently noone can verify Ward Churchill's alleged "Native American" lineage, and he refuses to answer questions about it, it surprises me that someone with such shakey credentials would even be considered to speak on behalf of native peoples.

Moreover, Mr. Churchill-- while entitled to speak on whatever topics fly into and out of his brain, and I DO support this-- is ALSO entitled to suffer the indignation, jeers, and moral outrage of those who disagree with his statements.

The University of Colorado can be rightly proud of its recently discovered free-speech advocacy. I look forward to exercising my ACLU-backed First Amendment rights by yelling "FIRE!" in their crowded lecture halls, in order to fully test their devotion to this new-found "religion."

As for UW-WW, the university and its chancellor should be ashamed of themselves!

Bob Braun

[Jeffrey]

Churchill is also on the hot seat for making claims that the U.S. army distributed small-pox infested blankets to Mandan Indians in 1836. I bumped into this article because I was interested in finding out more about government sponsored inoculations for Indians in Black Hawk's region in 1832. (It runs counter to the idea that the Jackson-era government pursued genocide in Manifest Destiny policies.) Anyway, this link is an interesting read:
hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm
--Jeffrey

[Mike Thorson]

These are excerpts from an article by Anne Coulter

"Churchill already has a phony lineage and phony war record. In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, "has not requested arms from the Libyan government." In 1997, he was one of the "witnesses" who spoke at a "Free Mumia" event in Philadelphia on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Churchill's claim that he is an Indian isn't an incidental boast, it is central to his career, his writing, and his political activism. Churchill has been the co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, the vice chairperson of the American Indian "Anti-Defamation" Council, and an associate professor and coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.

By Churchill's own account, a crucial factor in his political development was "being an American Indian referred to as 'chief' in a combat unit" in Vietnam, which made him sad. This is known to con men everywhere as a "two-fer."

In addition to an absence of evidence about his Indian heritage, there is an absence of evidence that he was in combat in Vietnam. After the POW Network revealed that Churchill had never seen combat, he countered with this powerful argument: "They can say whatever the hell they want. That's confidential information, and I've never ordered its release from the Department of Defense. End of story." [Mike note – doesn’t matter, military records for any individual are available by invoking the Freedom of Information Act and requesting the records]

In one of his books, "Struggle for the Land," Churchill advances the argument that one-third of America is the legal property of Indians. And if you believe Churchill is a real Indian, he also happens to be part owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.

In his most famous oeuvre, the famed 9/11 essay calling the 9/11 World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," he said "Arab terrorists" -- his quotes -- had simply "responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq" by giving Americans "a tiny dose of their own medicine."

Having blurted out "Iraq" in connection with 9/11 in a moment of pique, Churchill had to backpedal when the anti-war movement needed to argue that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Arab terrorism. He later attached an "Addendum" to the essay saying that the 9/11 attack was not only payback for Iraq, but also for various other of this country's depredations especially against "real Indians" (of which he is not one).

In light of the fact that Churchill's entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he's an Indian, it's rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are "absolutely indefensible."


Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee," to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he's not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) A recent investigation by The Denver Post revealed that Tyner's father was indeed married to a Cherokee. But that was only after Joshua's mother -- and Churchill's relative -- was scalped by Indians.

By now, all that's left of Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry is his assertion: "It is just something that was common knowledge in my family."

Over the years, there were other subtle clues the university might have noticed.

Churchill is not in the tribal registries kept since the 1800s by the federal government.

No tribe will enroll him -- a verification process Churchill dismisses as "poodle papers" for Indians.

In 1990, Churchill was forced to stop selling his art as "Indian art" under federal legislation sponsored by then-representative -- and actual Indian! -- Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that required Indian artists to establish that they are accepted members of a federally recognized tribe. Churchill responded by denouncing the Indian artist who had exposed him.

In the early '90s, he hoodwinked an impecunious Cherokee tribe into granting him an "associate membership" by telling them he "wrote some books and was a big-time author." A tribal spokeswoman explained: He "convinced us he could help our people." They never heard from him again -- yet another treaty with the Indians broken by the white man. Soon thereafter, the tribe stopped offering "associate memberships."

A decade ago, Churchill was written up in an article in News From Indian Country, titled, "Sovereignty and Its Spokesmen: The Making of an Indian." The article noted that Churchill had claimed membership in a scrolling series of Indian tribes, but over "the course of two years, NFIC hasn't been able to confirm a single living Indian relative, let alone one real relative that can vouch for his tribal descent claim."

When real Indians complained to Colorado University in 1994 that a fake Indian was running their Indian Studies program, a spokeswoman for the CU president said the university needed "to determine if the position was designated for a Native American. And I can't answer that right now." Apparently it was answered in Churchill's favor since he's still teaching.

If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university. In his book, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present," Churchill denounces Jews for presuming to imagine the Holocaust was unique. In the chapter titled "Lie for Lie: Linkages between Holocaust Deniers and Proponents of the Uniqueness of the Jewish Experience in World War II," Churchill calls the Third Reich merely "a crystallization" of Christopher Columbus' ravages of his people (if he were an Indian).

His research apparently consisted of watching the Disney movie "Pocahontas," which showed that the Indians meant the European settlers no harm.

Even the credulous Nation magazine -- always on red alert for tales of government oppression -- dismissed Churchill's 1988 book "Agents of Repression" about Cointelpro-type operations against the American Indian Movement, saying the book "does not give much new information" and "even a reader who is inclined to believe their allegations will want more evidence than they provide."

In response to the repeated complaints from Indians that a phony Indian was running CU's Indian Studies program, Churchill imperiously responded: "Guess what that means, guys? I'm not taking anyone's job, there wouldn't be an Indian Studies program if I wasn't coordinating it. ... They won't give you a job just because you have the paper." This white man of English and Swiss-German descent apparently believes there are no actual Indians deserving of his position at CU. "

[adjutant7inf]

The Champaign News-Gazette had an editorial on Churchill in its 2/10/05 edition. They noted that Churchill grew up in Illinois and earned his BA and MA at Sangamon State University (Now UofI Springfield) before moving to South Dakota, New York, and Colorado. Their conculsion was he has a right to say what he wants, he should not be fired, but there is nothing wrong with ignoring him and his "lopsided opinions."

I have over the years had occasion to run into several people who claim to be Indian. I also sat in on and at one point served on a sub-committee concerning a Indian burial ground that was part of a Spanish Colonial Mission. During which, I observed some rather interesting in fighting and the relaince on "recognized" Indian tribes. Apparently, if the US Government does not recognize your particular tribe today, then it does not exist, despite people being able to prove blood lines to a particular tribe through documentation.

Over the years, I found it interesting that people will quickly shoot you and your documentation down if you do not have a blood connection. An example, you can't teach Black, Indian or Mexican history if you are not Black, Indian, or Mexican. I find this kind of represive. My thoughts have always been he with the best understanding of the sources should win.

What muddles things up is some one like Churchill who not only makes up facts about himself, but apparently does the same with his documentation. I certainly would not waste my time going to hear him speak. What this type of person wants is attention, and he will get it anyway he can. It also appears that if you say something over and over you start to believe it, which looks like it is true in this particular case.

[Robert Braun]

Nass finds a forum
February 16, 2005

No doubt there is serious competition for the title of "Wisconsin's Most Ridiculous Legislator." But rare is the year when state Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, fails to prevail.

Nass, who rarely makes a meaningful contribution to debates about tax policy, education, health care or economic development, can always be counted on to scream about whatever irrelevancy tops the list of right-wing talking points. As such, he is always the first in line to try to stir up a controversy that will avert attention from the fact that he is not actually doing much in the way of legislating.

Usually, when Nass is ranting and raving about how the state should prevent municipalities from protecting the rights of citizens or setting a reasonable minimum wage, he garners a couple of local headlines and then fades back into the obscurity Wisconsinites assign their really silly legislators.

But, this month, Nass is getting more attention. Indeed, Nass has gone nationwide.

After the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater's chancellor decided to allow a controversial professor to speak on campus, Nass set out to block the speech.

Declaring that he would appeal to the University of Wisconsin System president in his campaign to limit freedom of speech, Nass began circulating a formal resolution to condemn Chancellor Jack Miller's decision allowing University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill to speak at Whitewater.

Nass, whose acquaintance with the Constitution is not what it ought to be, may not find a lot of takers from his crusade against the Constitution in Wisconsin.

But he's found a forum in New York City.

Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News Channel ranter whose level of bombast elevates to near hysteria when he cannot find a consequential topic about which to be enraged, has been spitting bullets ever since he got wind of the fact that Churchill penned an essay that suggested that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were provoked by U.S. policies. Churchill's lack of sympathy for the victims of those attacks was jarring, to be sure. But, while his statements are controversial, they are by any measure protected under the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, the First Amendment means very little to the junior Joe McCarthys at Fox. In pursuit of the political agenda that its conservative owners have established, Fox personalities will jettison any American value or tradition that gets in their way, even freedom of speech.

But whom from Wisconsin could they find to join in their assault on the Constitution?

Well, of course, Steve Nass was Fox's man. And there he was on O'Reilly's show, blathering on about the need to silence speech that he does not like.

Finally, the most ridiculous member of the Wisconsin Legislature has found a forum where he is taken seriously.

Published: 7:40 AM 2/16/05

=====

To refresh the recollections of our board participants, here is what the First Amendment ACTUALLY says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This clearly states that Congress shall not make a law which abridges the freedom of speech. So any American with a thought in their head (regardless of content) has the "right" to express that though an exercise in "free speech."

However, the Constitution says nothing about a guarantee of a FORUM for free speech.

Leave it to the Cap. Times to involk the "First Amendment" for some kook, but smear others who apparently have no 'First Amendment" rights to their own different opinions... especially if the newspaper happens to DISAGREE with them.

I find it interesting that no serious journalist or academian apparently has come out "on the record" in support of the content of Mr. Churchill's "free speech" exercise. Even the Cap. Times give it a tacit "thumbs down (although can't muster the fortitude to go beyond a pasty-faced adjective: "jarring" )

So... let's "Re-Cap."

Does Mr. Churchill have a right to his "free speech," however "jarring?" I think he does, and I support that right.

Does America have a right to "free speech" however jarring, in subjecting Mr. Churchill's reprehensible prose to the media's "John Rocker" treatment? I think she does, and I support that right, too.

(...Now the media won't give Chruchill the same treatment they gave John Rocker because they quietly agree with ol' Ward. But that's grist for another thread...)

Bob Braun

[Mike Thorson]

NOT CRAZY HORSE, JUST CRAZY

Wed Feb 16, 7:59 PM ET

By Ann Coulter

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has written that "unquestionably, America has earned" the attack of 9/11. He calls the attack itself a result of "gallant sacrifices of the combat teams." That the "combat teams" killed only 3,000 Americans, he says, shows they were not "unreasonable or vindictive." He says that in order to even the score with America, Muslim terrorists "would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people."


Ann Coulter



To grasp the current state of higher education in America, consider that if Churchill is at any risk at all of being fired, it is only because he smokes.


Churchill poses as a radical living on the edge, supremely confident that he is protected by tenure from being fired. College professors are the only people in America who assume they can't be fired for what they say.


Tenure was supposed to create an atmosphere of open debate and inquiry, but instead has created havens for talentless cowards who want to be insulated from life. Rather than fostering a climate of open inquiry, college campuses have become fascist colonies of anti-American hate speech, hypersensitivity, speech codes, banned words and prohibited scientific inquiry.


Even liberals don't try to defend Churchill on grounds that he is Galileo pursuing an abstract search for the truth. They simply invoke "free speech," like a deus ex machina to end all discussion. Like the words "diverse" and "tolerance," "free speech" means nothing but: "Shut up, we win." It's free speech (for liberals), diversity (of liberals) and tolerance (toward liberals).


Ironically, it is precisely because Churchill is paid by the taxpayers that "free speech" is implicated at all. The Constitution has nothing to say about the private sector firing employees for their speech. That's why you don't see Bill Maher on ABC anymore. Other well-known people who have been punished by their employers for their "free speech" include Al Campanis, Jimmy Breslin, Rush Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek and Andy Rooney.


In fact, the Constitution says nothing about state governments firing employees for their speech: The First Amendment clearly says, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Firing Ward Churchill is a pseudo-problem caused by modern constitutional law, which willy-nilly applies the Bill of Rights to the states -- including the one amendment that clearly refers only to "Congress." (Liberals love to go around blustering "'no law' means 'no law'!" But apparently "Congress" doesn't mean "Congress.")


Even accepting the modern notion that the First Amendment applies to state governments, the Supreme Court has distinguished between the government as sovereign and the government as employer. The government is extremely limited in its ability to regulate the speech of private citizens, but not so limited in regulating the speech of its own employees.


So the First Amendment and "free speech" are really red herrings when it comes to whether Ward Churchill can be fired. Even state universities will not run afoul of the Constitution for firing a professor who is incapable of doing his job because he is a lunatic, an incompetent or an idiot -- and those determinations would obviously turn on the professor's "speech."


If a math professor's "speech" consisted of insisting that 2 plus 2 equals 5, or an astrophysicist's "speech" was to claim that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, or a history professor's "speech" consisted of rants about the racial inferiority of the n-----s, each one of them could be fired by a state university without running afoul of the constitution.


Just because we don't have bright lines for determining what speech can constitute a firing offense, doesn't mean there are no lines at all. If Churchill hasn't crossed them, we are admitting that almost nothing will debase and disgrace the office of professor (except, you know, suggesting that there might be innate differences in the mathematical abilities of men and women).


In addition to calling Americans murdered on 9/11 "little Eichmanns," Churchill has said:



The U.S. Army gave blankets infected with smallpox to the Indians specifically intending to spread the disease.

Not only are the diseased-blanket stories cited by Churchill denied by his alleged sources, but the very idea is contradicted by the facts of scientific discovery. The settlers didn't understand the mechanism of how disease was transmitted. Until Louis Pasteur's experiments in the second half of the 19th century, the idea that disease could be caused by living organisms was as scientifically accepted as crystal reading is today. Even after Pasteur, many scientists continued to believe disease was spontaneously generated from within. Churchill is imbuing the settlers with knowledge that in most cases wouldn't be accepted for another hundred years.



Indian reservations are the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps.

I forgot Auschwitz had a casino.


If Ward Churchill can be a college professor, what's David Duke waiting for?


The whole idea behind free speech is that in a marketplace of ideas, the truth will prevail. But liberals believe there is no such thing as truth and no idea can ever be false (unless it makes feminists cry, such as the idea that there are innate differences between men and women). Liberals are so enamored with the process of free speech that they have forgotten about the goal.

Faced with a professor who is a screaming lunatic, they retreat to, "Yes, but academic freedom, tenure, free speech, blah, blah," and their little liberal minds go into autopilot with all the slogans.

Why is it, again, that we are so committed to never, ever firing professors for their speech? Because we can't trust state officials to draw any lines at all here? Because ... because ... because they might start with crackpots like Ward Churchill -- but soon liberals would be endangered? Liberals don't think there is any conceivable line between them and Churchill? Ipse dixit.

[Robert Braun]

The Cap. Times is reporting that all 400 "free" tickets are gone for the Ward Churchill "speech" at UW-WW...

(As a one-time college student, I can tell you that most anything "free" offered at 10 a.m. is gone by 9:59 a.m.)

Tickets all gone for Churchill talk.

February 22, 2005

All of the nearly 400 free tickets available for the Ward Churchill lecture next Tuesday at UW-Whitewater are gone.

Tickets to see the controversial University of Colorado-Boulder professor were claimed by 3 p.m. Friday, the first day of availability. More than 100 students were waiting in line when the tickets became available at 9:30 that morning.

Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies, wrote an essay three years ago in which he blamed U.S. policies for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In the article, which received little notice at the time, he compared the people killed in the World Trade Center to "little Eichmanns," in reference to the Nazi war criminal who claimed he was just following orders when he helped engineer the Holocaust.

Churchill's UW-Whitewater talk, meanwhile, is titled "Racism Against the American Indian" and is one of four scheduled on the campus during Native Pride Week.

[Robert Braun]

Well... it's all over.

With a whimper instead of a bang.

BackWard Churchill can now slink back to Colorado with his $5,000 honorarium, safe and secure that his crackpot 'ideas' at last were aired under the guise of "freedom of speech."

And as usual, the so-called "progressive media" reported on his completely non-Native American topic with all the timidity and soft-balls normally reserved for controversial figures with whom they secretly and even not-so-secretly agree. Read all about it: www.madison.com/wsj/mad/local/index.php?ntid=30456&nt_adsect=edit

From this lamentable little exercise at UW-WW, it should be clear to all now that the "freedom of speech" door clearly does not swing both ways. In the so-called "free exchange of ideas" only CERTAIN ideas are worthy of exploration and laud, while others are condemned, shouted down, or ignored... all under the same mantle of "Free Speech."

You cannot have increased "freedom" without increased "responsibility." UW-WW and the mainstream media have utterly failed to hold BackWard to the same "responsibility" standards they hold others who blatantly make up facts to support a litany of hate. Just ask C-BS News and others who have set the new standard for the "double standard."

And once again, the hypocracy is laid bare for all to see.

[mpcavanaugh]

Yesterday I heard about Churchill's visit on a local radio station at the top of every hour, and I live several hours away which I found quite interesting.

Mike

[mpcavanaugh]

I found it interesting when hearing yesterday that the president of U of Colorado will resign come the end of June that a football scandel was pointed out as one of the reasons and also Ward Churchill's comments through the years were cited as well.

Mike

[Robert Braun]

Well, Mike... apparently my UW-WW son was one of the persons who snapped up a free ticket for the Back Ward Churchill "Free Speech" circus at the university. Since my son has already had one UW-WW course taught by a professor who was a self-proclaimed lesbian-wickken, I figured ol' Ward couldn't do much more...

My son reported that the event was anticlimatic, and (rather than engage the audiance in the "Native American" theme for which he was supposedly PAID) he spent the entire speech rambling ing and defending himself against the brazan assaults by the media. The "victim" defense seemed to work on my son, who actually felt sorry for the bum. One of Ward's "claims" was that more collegues agreed with his theories than disagreed, so therefor he must be right. (Using this logic, he should also be speaking Chinese, since 1 Billion Chinese certainly can't be wrong!)

I now consider the "free speech" angle of Mr. Churchill's supporters to be a dodge... wind and smoke that obscures the real issue. That issue is: Mr. Churchill HATES America. He hates it so much he had to invent history to lend justification for his rage. He has to invent a heritage to shield him from detractors. And he has to have a straw-man to knock down, in order to deflecting attention away from him and his "ideas"--theeby making his own sand-structured "theories" sound less... idiotic.

In my judgement... people who have to invent history to justify their wierd views of the world do not have the moral and ethical fiber to be college professors. I guess we'll see if the State of Colorado agrees.

[mpcavanaugh]

Wow, most interesting there Bob, thanks for the inside info. One question what does the 'lesbian-wickken' teach at UW-WW? That too must be very intersting.

Mike

[Robert Braun]

Yes... my son took a sociology course from a UW-WW college professor who rather unabashedly proclaimed to her sociology class that she was not only lesbian, but also had inclinations towards "wickken"-- although if I recall my son's comments, she apparently went though the whole "course of study" without completing either the certification process or what ever passes for a "final exam" in order to become a full-fledged "wickken."

Now, just HOW these proclaimations related to the course work I don't know. Apparently, despite her personal "inclinations," she presented as a reasonably knowledgeable, if obviously biased, instructor.

I continue to amaze my somewhat more "liberal" friends and associates when I note that I did not dissuade him from taking a course from this professor. Nor did I dissuade him from taking what I regard as a patently useless course on "History of the Caribbean," nor even from attending the "Back Ward Churchill Show." I think that exposure to a wide variety of people and experiences allows one to more realistically formulate one's views and opinions of the world.

Unlike the previously mentioned UW-WW professor, who stymied and shut down discussion and discourse regarding points of view with which she obviously disagreed, I don't have a problem with discussing and debating both sides of an issue-- even when I passionately disagree with the opposite side. There is, I think, merit and value in hearing out different points of view.

I remain continually amazed at the continuous signs of shallow thinking, intellectual laziness, and "one pony show" discourses that pass for "liberal education" in college after university in this country. This is not a case of a "few bad apples." I am forming the opinion that the genuinely GOOD professors... ones with whom education and self-edification is a continual process... are going the way of the dodo.

Nate (my son) was fortunate to have several classes at UW-WW from what I would describe as truly GOOD professors.

Perhaps it's a good thing we have colleges, if for no other place that to warehouse a few so-called "academians" who would be clearly unable to become gainfully employed in the "for profit" working world.

Regards, Bob.

[mpcavanaugh]

Sociology that makes sense, I was thinking it must be something like that because when I read lesbian wickken I didn't think Calculus. That is very interesting thanks for sharing.

Mike

[Robert Braun]

Let's see... a UC professor makes up history (and is further accused of plaigerizing material) to support his hate of America and treasonous support of those who would attack us... and this is heralded "free speech."

The Harvard university professor offers his opinions (and he said they were his opinions) on women and their "abilities" in math and science... and he is subjected to a symbolic "vote of no confidence."

I don't undestand. WHERE are all the "free speech" nuts when it comes to supporting Dr. Summers? What ever happened to college campuses being "free and open" to all forms of speech? Where are the lofty pronouncements from faculty and students about dealing with those "CHALLENGING" issues that confront our society?

AGAIN... I submit that the hypocracy of only CERTAIN speech being allowable under the guise of so-called "free speech" is laid bare for all to see.

For a real chuckle... it would be funny if it wasn't so sad and absurd at the same time... Dr. Summers' plight is offered in the following news article:

==================

Professors, in Close Vote, Censure Harvard Leader
By SARA RIMER

Published: March 16, 2005


CAMBRIDGE, Mass., March 15 - The Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard approved a resolution on Tuesday expressing a lack of confidence in the leadership of the university's president, Lawrence H. Summers, citing longstanding dissatisfaction with his management style and, to a lesser extent, his remarks in January about women in math and science.

The vote was 218 in favor and 185 opposed, with 18 abstentions.

At an intense and sober meeting, Dr. Summers's supporters accused his opponents of political correctness while his critics emphasized that their concerns had nothing to do with political correctness but were about Dr. Summers's leadership, as well as his remarks concerning a lack of women in science.

Passage of the resolution was largely symbolic because only the Harvard Corporation, which governs the university, has the authority to dismiss the university's president.

The corporation reaffirmed its support for Dr. Summers in a statement released after the meeting by James R. Houghton, senior fellow of the corporation. "The members of the Corporation fully support President Summers in his ongoing efforts to listen thoughtfully to the range of views being expressed by members of the university's faculties, and to work collegially and constructively with them to address the important academic matters facing Harvard," Mr. Houghton said in the statement.

The vote of no confidence, believed to be the first in Harvard's history, was a blow for Dr. Summers, who has been trying for weeks to repair relations with his faculty.

Dr. Summers spoke briefly at the end of the meeting on Tuesday, saying he had been trying to learn from people at the university in the last few weeks and would keep trying.

At a statement released after the meeting, Dr. Summers said he had done his best "to hear all that has been said, to think hard, to learn and to adjust."

"I will continue to do that," he said. "I am committed to doing all I can to restore the sense of trust that is critical to our work together, and to re-engage our collective attention with the vital academic issues before us."

The vote was taken by secret ballot, and when the results were announced, about halfway through the meeting, "people gasped," said Prof. Mary C. Waters, chairwoman of the sociology department.

"Everyone was in shock," said Professor Waters, who said she voted for the no-confidence resolution. "People did not expect it." At that moment, Professor Waters added, "I felt sorry for Larry."

But others took a harder line. J. Lorand Matory, a professor of anthropology and African and African-American studies, told reporters after the meeting that Dr. Summers should step down. "There is no noble alternative for him but resignation," said Professor Matory, who introduced the resolution.

As a possible compromise, some members of the faculty had put forth a second resolution, expressing regret at Dr. Summers's management style and his remarks about women. But the faculty passed the harsher no-confidence resolution first. It then approved the second measure, with a larger majority, 253 to 137.

"This is not even about just style anymore," said Professor Waters, who has criticized Dr. Summers for what she describes as a pattern of intimidating faculty members and squelching debate. "There is widespread dissatisfaction with his substantive decisions as well as style."

Dr. Summers, an economist and a former United States Treasury secretary, has been meeting individually with faculty members throughout the Faculty of Arts and Sciences over the last several weeks, apologizing for his remarks about women and for any other offense he might have given and asking for their support so he could move forward.

Now in his fourth year as president, Dr. Summers has ambitious plans to expand the campus to Allston, across the Charles River; to reinvigorate the undergraduate curriculum; and to put a new emphasis on big science.

Claudia Goldin, an economics professor who is a strong supporter of Dr. Summers, said she was disappointed by the vote but added that it represented a "bare majority of those who were there" among the 802 voting members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

"I still think he's taking the university in the right direction," Professor Goldin said. "There are clearly people who don't like the direction for one reason or another. Some feel threatened."

David Ward, president of the American Council on Education, a nonprofit advocacy group of college presidents and chancellors, expressed astonishment at the vote of no confidence.

"It is such an unprecedented event that it's very hard to anticipate the immediate consequences," said Mr. Ward, former chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "It indicates perhaps a level of seriousness that I had not anticipated. I knew there was a problem. I thought people would have a little more patience to see if this could be worked out."

Mr. Ward said he could not answer the question of whether Dr. Summers could continue to govern effectively. "That really depends on how he feels about the vote and the degree to which other parts of the university share the feelings that are expressed at this time," he said.

Professor Waters and other professors have said in recent weeks that they had been concerned about Dr. Summers's leadership for some time and that his remarks in January suggesting that "intrinsic aptitude" might be an explanation for women's lack of success in science had brought the concerns out.

Despite differences of opinion over Dr. Summers, faculty members took pains to talk with one another after the meeting in a demonstration of collegiality, Professor Waters said.

"I see how it is."

---- The Scalper.

Tartly yours...

Bob Braun