March 01, 2005
Ward Churchill is in full meltdown mode. Last Thursday, he swatted a newspaper at a Denver tv reporter, when the reporter tried to ask about the "Winter Attack" painting. Churchill wants to get fired. Like the Pearcy couple here in Sacramento, he thrives on his own controversy. He lives for it.
The University may oblige him.
Internal discussions at Colorado University are centering on a buyout offer to controversial professor Ward Churchill in order to quell the tempest caused by his characterizations of victims of Sept. 11, 2001, as 'little Eichmans' and to avoid a costly, drawn-out lawsuit, the Denver Post reports.
. . .
Colorado regents have authorized an internal review of Churchill's writings and speeches to determine if he should be fired. A decision is scheduled for the week of March 7, although Churchill could appeal if the university terminates his employment. Such a dismissal, even if not mired in the controversy surrounding Churchill's case, could last years and inpose [sic] expensive legal costs.
What's the pool on his last day at CU?
Posted by annika, Mar. 1, 2005 |
re: your Churchill pic
That's no moon... that's a space station.
What's galling is CU is considering buying him out (the figure I've heard bandied about is $10 million) instead of just firing him for numerous offenses. There's the lying on his resume thingy (getting a job based on false pretenses should be a firing offense) and the stealing people's artwork thingy (theft should also be a firing offense, and I hope the artists estates sue the piss out of him) and I betcha more stuff will be discovered as more and more people dig into his past. Tenure or no, I'm pretty sure there's a clause in his contract about not embarrasing the school, and I can't see how CU isn't embarrased about this. It's too bad political correctness has resulted in backbones being ripped out left and right.
Re the artwork thingie. It's not inherently dishonest. People base original artwork on other people's art all the time. Trouble is, i don't think he acknowledged the original artist. He should have indicated something like: "after so and so artist" or "based on a painting by so and so."
I agree with Victor. I don't think Churchill will sue. Churchill doesn't want all the revelations that a court case would bring. If that stuff was made public, the only place he could get a job is Harvard.
CU paying off Churchill, is like paying protection money to the Mafia.
How much money did the victim's families get on average? There's no way Churchil should be hitting the lottery as a result of his defamation.
If CU tries to buy him out, I fully expect the Legislature to step in and pass a bill to prevent them from doing so. In which case, you'll also have a fight over the extent of the university's independent budgetary authority.
Winter Attack is out and out fraud. He photographed the original, reversed the negative and printed it. It is an exact mirror image of the original with one exception. He whited out some unimportant ground details. That piece of art took 30 minutes of his time to create.
That fact that he reversed the image tells me that he knew he was stealing. If he sold the prints for a lot of money he could be sent to jail.
Oh i didn't realize that. i thought he painted the copy himself.
Thanks, Jake. annika, had the piece been acknowledged and the purchaser informed it was "after Mails" Churchill would have a stronger position...and no reason to throw a punch at a reporter. Nah, there's something rotten in the state of Colorado goin' on there.
You can see the news report (and read the transcript) of Churchill's assault here. Particularly important is this comment by Mr. Mails's son: "My father invested a great deal of himself in his work, and from that he developed a great fierceness in defending his work," Mails' son said. "I cannot imagine he would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces."
Michelle Malkin, the second smartest person in the world, has a good Churchill "artwork" round up here.
How long until Dan Rather comes to Churchill's defense? i can see it now:
"I know that this artwork is his. He wouldn't have sold it if had not been. There isn't going to be... there's no... what you're saying apology? Not even discussed, nor should it be."
Actually, Annie, I read a blog that quoted him as saying that he did in fact acknowledge it was "after....". Problem is, he says it was verbal, and there is nothing more to substantiate his further false claim.
The guy covers his lies with lies. He lies so much, he can't remember what he has said and to whom.
He is a classic pathological liar, and has been getting away with it for years. I'm betting that several coeds (or former ones) come forth soon to tell how he seduced them with his glamorous lies.
If the CU Trustees pay him off, they should be fired by the Legislature and the Governor. This guy deserves to be fired in disgrace. Let him sue, then he will be finally exposed to the world as the charlatan that he is.
Thanks, Bill and Hillary for setting the mark in this country. It is good to know that it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
k that pic is totally scary... aaaaaaahhh
Fire this bozo because he lied on his resume or because his scholarship is sloppier than a Tijuana men's room, but please, not because he called the 9/11 victims little Eichmanns in a journal piece. That really is free speech. Dumber than a post, sure. Vacant and mean-spirited? Of course. But his right to say dumb, mean-spirted things is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Let's be patient. It took a generation to put clowns like Ward Churchill into their tenured positions, and it's going to take a generation to clean them out, one funeral at a time.
And the worthless scumbag needs a damn haircut, too.
He should have the electrodes implanted in his head.
Patrick, I don't think there's a single one of annika's readers who won't disagree with you. We all realize freedom of speech includes the freedom to make yourself look like a horse's ass, too.