I agree with Belmont Club that the Ward Churchill kerfuffle is small beer, to say the least. The spectacle of some desperate nitwit pretending to be an Indian in order to get a job in an Ethnic Studies Department is right out of an Italian comedy of the seventies (Pietro Germi or maybe Lina Wertmuller). The “gulled” gentlemen and ladies in the various academic departments (not to mention the bozos over at “prestigious” Hamilton College) would be marvelous foils for, say, Giancarlo Giannini at his height. Not even the great Gogol himself could make such delicious mockery of boneheaded “political correctness.”
The Eason Jordan Affair is the exact opposite, something far more important than it appears. The Washington Times this morning has an editorial detailing how Jordan has made his disputed (or semi-disputed) allegations more than once about US servicemen deliberately “targeting” journalists, although the numbers have shifted, first ten deaths, now twelve, sort of “grade inflation,” to use a Ward Churchillian analogy.
But kidding aside, there are three possibilities, my dear Watson: 1. Jordan is right. 2. he is delusional. 3. he is lying. 1. is the least likely since we can assume that if Jordan had some proof, he would have long ago produced it. This would have been the scoop of scoops, even capable of getting many a hawk to reconsider his or her stand. No, 2. and 3., separately or in combination (there are myriads), are more likely.
Whatever the case, what does that say about the editorial decisions of CNN for whose judgments he is largely responsible? What does that say about the accuracy of the information we–and the rest of the world–have been receiving? CNN has a prominent position on nearly everyone’s cable and satellite feed. For a great many years it was the sole 24-hour news outlet. Free speech is absolutely necessary to society, but to what extent do they owe us an allegiance to the facts? How do we penalize them when what they present veers toward propaganda (as it did when CNN played footsie with Saddam)?
This has no easy solution. Eugene Volokh, who has far greater knowledge than I in this area, thinks Ward Churchill should not be fired. He’s probably right (although I wouldn’t blame a rump group of parents who paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition for their children to be “educated” by this clown for taking matters in their own hands), but what about Eason Jordan– in terms of influence a Tyrannosaurus Rex to Churchill’s ant? For now, Jordan seems to be under the protection of his colleagues in and out of CNN. I wonder how long that will last.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
38 Comments
1. Ben:Both should be fired — Ward Churchill because he is either too profoundly stupid to be a professor or too partisan to be allowed to hold a position of trust teaching our youth, and Eason Jordan for essentially the same reasons. (I could back of on W.C. if he at least showed some contrition and recognition of the asinine nature of his statements). Until the academy and the MSM introduce some notion of consequence into their employees, neither can be expected to live up to the trust we have placed in them.
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:11 am 2. Fausta:The “gulled” gentlemen and ladies in the various academic departments (not to mention the bozos over at “prestigious” Hamilton College) would be marvelous foils for, say, Giancarlo Giannini at his height.
I was thinking more in the likes of Jack Black.
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:14 am 3. Bostonian:Talk of a “solution” makes me uncomfortable, as it tends to connote some sort of centrality. All that is needed is more transparency, and that is growing by leaps and bounds thanks to blogs like this.
The internet, the market, and public opinion will make it more and more difficult for people like this to invent stories.
But this is not a non-issue. He has alleged criminal behavior. So we call him on it. We demand a congressional hearing and investigate these allegations, publicly, so that Jordan’s reputation gets destroyed, at least within the US.
This serves as a disincentive to others who would just lie for fun/gain.
I also demonstrates that we do indeed take criminal behavior seriously. (Here at Roger’s we know that our country and our citizens do respect rule of law, but Jordan implies otherwise.)
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:21 am 4. Lola:I think Ward Churchill is stupid, and should be tarred and feathered, then run out of the town. Fired . . . I dunno. Technically, he hasn’t done anything criminal other than getting passing himself off as an Indian in order to get a podium and even that may be just considered a nuisance (caveat – I’m not a lawyer).
But Jordan I think is a far more serious case. If he’d said the same thing during World War II (remember . . . “Loose lips sink ships”???) and it turned out that it was all bogus, what would have happened to him? That’s the same kind of treatment he should be getting today.
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:26 am 5. Bostonian:Ward Churchill actually bores me. He’s an extremely predictable idiot of the Left. There’s nothing new here at all.
If I were paying money to that school, I would demand that he be fired. If I were thinking of attending it, I would probably decide not to and I’d tell them why.
But as far as I am concerned, that’s between the school and its customers.
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:36 am 6. Mr. Davis:Lola is correct.
He made statements about American military personnel targeting and assassinating journalists in front of a Senator and a Congressman. This public accusation made on foreign soil of criminal conduct by U. S. military personnel demands Congressional investigation. If thru, there should be consequences and changes for the military. Mr. Jordan should be told to put up or shut up under the klieg lights. I suspect he is nothing but a later day Mc Carthy of the left and should be shown to be such to the whole country.
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:39 am 7. Rick Ballard:I don’t see any possible justification for firing Eason. He is upholding the very best of journalistic ethics (as currently promulgated) by speaking fake but accurate truth to power. He is advancing two narratives (evil US and pure journalist) in one speech. What is there to fault? He should be roundly applauded for his attempt to advance his cause by inventive means and held up as the epitome of the MSM as it exists today.
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:43 am 8. Lola:Rick, the real question is that the MSM must suffer the consequences of their actions, right or wrong. Dan Rather got treated with kid gloves, Mary Mapes apparently is still at her office, and the only people being punished are those who took orders from their superiors. As for the CBS vice president . . . well, what happened to him?
Eason Jordan just can’t be allowed to get away with this. What else will future journalists be able to get away with?
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:54 am 9. Catherine:Well, I want a nap, and I think I’m going to HAVE a nap, if I can tear myself away from my laptop . . .
So I haven’t read Volkokh’s post.
However, I’m going to jump right in and say that I’m sick and tired of hearing ‘academic freedom’ used to support non-academic c***.
It’s the same thing that’s happened with ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
‘Innocent until proven guilty’ has a specific legal meaning, which I believe is that the burden is on the state to prove guilt rather than on the defendant prove innocence. (Any attorneys out there can correct this if I’ve got it wrong—-)
What ‘innocent until proven guilty’ does not mean, and could not possibly mean, is that you and I have to assume O.J. didn’t do it.
The same thing has happened with ‘academic freedom.’ The concept has been radically overgeneralized.
Academic freedom exists to protect academic research. Period.
The guarantee of academic freedom allows researchers to challenge a dominant paradigm without fear of being fired.
Academic freedom has nothing to do with personal opinion.
Nothing.
(This definition gives the ME folks at Columbia some wiggle room, because those professors, let us hope, actually are studying the conflict between Palestine and Israel, and have expertise in the subject. They are still violating professional standards by harrassing students, which is a separate issue.)
Ward Churchill has no expertise in the victims of 9/11.
He has the same right to call them names the rest of us do, but that’s it. He has no special protection by virtue of holding a position on the faculty of a university.
And if it appears that he is telling his students the 9-11 dead were ‘little Eichmanns’ then he should be fired, because he has breached professional requirements that support student freedom of inquiry and thought.
Enough!
Feb 4, 2005 - 9:55 am 10. jedrury:A wonderful post posed this morning by Roger.
More of these contretemps will arise in
the future as the liberal extremists and fringy whackjobs (Churchill, Jordan, Kennedy, Krugman, Dowd, etc.) rant and rave under the yolk of a successful presidency and the acceptance by the American people of a conservative agenda.
Where else is there to go but to the fringe when the liberals have no program, no vision and no hold on power?
Feb 4, 2005 - 10:00 am 11. Clio:As one who spent far too long in the hallowed glen of the academy but who has been “out” long enough to gain some perspective, let my vote be officially cast for firing Prof. Churchill, and soon.
Volokh and Reynolds are smart guys but they speak from inside the academy, though in a walled off politically incorrect subsection. Free speech doesn’t allow anyone the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater, and tenure does not convey upon intellectuals the right to use their lectern as a bully pulpit for treasonous (or otherwise) hate speech.
I might have been willing to let this fraudster pass, but for a email-posted link to my old school’s newspaper (aint technology grand?) which delivered at a few strokes of the keyboard this diatribe: “Elections of a Colonial Power” wherein a student belched the following wisdom. “The Iraqi elections that occurred on Jan. 30th marked a pivotal moment for Iraq and the United States alike: Iraq officially succumbed to thriving American colonialism, and the US could revel in its egotism.”
It got no better after this turgid screed of an opening sentence, and I was left depressed by what passes for “knowledge” on my old campus today, which brings me back to Ward C. Get rid of him, before more supposedly bright young things drink his tired, 60s era koolaid. Really.
Feb 4, 2005 - 10:03 am 12. RogerA:I think there are two underlying similarities. First, both Churchill and Jordan are creatures of their organizational environment; environments that have long since appropriated mantras rather than engage in thought. I see a similarity in Academe re that mantras of “diversity” and “academic freedom” which are the same I see in the MSM mantras of “public’s right to know,” “freedom of the press,” “inviolability of sources,” and the like.
There isnt a dime’s worth of difference between say the unsourced fiction of a Seymore Hirsch, Jordan Eason, or the demented ravings of an ersatz indian. Both are protected and elevated even in their totally unaccountable larger organizations.
The second similarity is that both Eason and Churchill are poseurs and twits.
Feb 4, 2005 - 10:09 am 13. Dishman:Churchill has committed another offense, using grades for personal retaliation. (via CQ)
Feb 4, 2005 - 10:11 am 14. Rick Ballard:“What else will future journalists be able to get away with?”
Lola,
Heaven only knows. What do you suppose that they might have gotten away with since the two narrative themes were adopted back in the early ’60’s? How many stories were packed full of juicy “fake but accurate” information cleverly packaged to enhance a journo’s rep while denigrating the US? In what way was Bob Woodward’s inventiveness in the ’70’s worse than Sy Hersch’s today? In what way does Eason Jordan’s attachment to “truth” differ from Walter Cronkite’s? How has the narrative focus that they write or speak in support of changed?
Don’t ask “Where are the ehicists from the MSM?” regarding this, Roger. There are none. Better to ask “Where are the journalism professors?”. The real answer for Lola lies there, for those j-school profs are turning out brand new baby journos without the ethical backbones or moral courage to stand up to their editors when the editors make the changes necessary for the story to follow the party line. Instead the j-school profs are still lecturing away on the concept that “truth is unknowable” and the necessity of balancing views from the far left with the center left.
Cancel your subscriptions to newspapers that are propaganda organs and bar CNN (and the other alphabeteers) from your view. These mastodons need to be slowly bled to death from a million cuts.
Feb 4, 2005 - 10:26 am 15. ambisinistral:Academic Freedom is one of those hoary and overblown rights that gets rolled out when it is convenient. The ciriculum taught in a class can most certainly be controlled, just check around university Biology Departments for creationists if you doubt me.
At any rate, I always thought Academic Freedom applied more to students being able to explore unpopular ideas than to pretend injuns to be able to teach drivel.
Feb 4, 2005 - 10:33 am 16. ganzo azul:In today’s WSJ, Sharon Begley writes on “People Believe a ‘Fact’ That Fits Their Views Even if It’s Clearly False.”
In her finaly paragraph, she writes “The news media would do well to keep in mind that once we report something, some people will always believe it even if we try to stuff the genie back in the bottle.”
I’m leaning towards believing that Eason Jordan has interpreted the Arab journalists’ perspective as truth. And, even if the facts refute this perspective, again from the article, “the original misinformation has already become an integral part of that mental model, and disregarding it would leave the world view a shambles.”
Eason Jordan ranks right up there with Seymour Hersh in the ability to construe anecdotes as evidence of US malevolance.
Feb 4, 2005 - 10:34 am 17. RogerA:Ganzo: Leon Festinger had this idea nailed some 50 years ago: google “cognitive dissonance.”
Feb 4, 2005 - 10:49 am 18. jerry:Ward Churchill should not be fired for what he said. However, if he obtained his appointed because of he falsified his “ethnic” credentials then he should be fired for lying on his resume.
Feb 4, 2005 - 11:21 am 19. byrd:Is there any chance when this is over, we’ll be able to direct some of our outrage to the question of why it would even be a resume builder to have one great-great-grandparent who’s Cherokee?
What, in a sane world, does that qualify a person for?
Feb 4, 2005 - 11:27 am 20. blogaddict:Churchill (amazingly ironic name!) should be fired for falsifying a material fact in his resume when applying for his current position. No need to even get into the free speech issues.
But the free speech issues are the interesting part. Tenure was originally designed to protect professors from being fired for espousing controversial or unpopular positions, not deranged ones.
The idea that ALL professorial speech is protected by tenure is ludicrous. What if a professor suddenly starting spouting gibberish, and had clearly gone insane? What if an astronomy professor started to say the moon was made of green cheese, and gave his students failing marks if they said otherwise? Clearly, a person could be fired (or “retired”) for becoming incompetent to teach his/her subject, or to teach at all.
The problem is in political speech such as Churchill’s. When does it fall into the realm of incompetence or even craziness, enough to disqualify the person to teach? Or, is it only protected free speech if the speech is PC? Imagine if Churchill had written an article (to take an egregious example) saying that all black people or all Muslims should be shot on sight. My guess is that no one would be protecting him under the mantle of free speech. But those same people don’t care if he calls the 9-11 victims Eichmanns.
As for Eason, I agree his case is much, much more serious. Years ago this never would have come to light, but now, because of the bloggers, it has. And the media has belatedly come to the realization that they have to give the bloggers a little respect, after Rathergate. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a successful campaign to expose the bias of the so-called “objective” MSM.
Feb 4, 2005 - 11:35 am 21. Paul:For too long both academia and the MSM have been the comfortable environs of fifth columnists.
Mr. Churchill may himself be small potatoes, but he almost perfectly encapsulates the insidious blend of narcissism, anti-Americanism, and deceitfulness that are the hallmarks of the Gramscian leftoids that have so thoroughly infiltrated our universities.
Academic freedom? Ask conservative kids how much academic freedom there is on most campuses. Those who seek to indoctrinate are the sworn enemies of such free exchanges of ideas.
To the extent that the Churchill imbroglio helps to expose the corrupting elements hard at work turning out ever new generations of internal enemies, therein lies its importance. He himself is simply the egregious example that gets people’s attention. A “useful idiot”, if you will. In this case, useful for exposing the useful idiots in academia.
Since the MSM is already widely perceived to be corrupt and biased, it is perhaps more important that academia receives some disinfecting sunlight.
Both of these clowns are trapped by the inertia inherent in systems that become corrupted by a lack of checks and balances and honest scrutiny. Expect plenty more of their ilk to plant a foot squarely in it. They can’t help themselves.
Feb 4, 2005 - 11:44 am 22. ms anne:i’ve written my senators and representatives to hold congressional hearings on jordan’s charges. he can put up or shut up, and take the consequences of his public accusations in time of war. cnn shouldn’t mind, believing that any publicity is good publicity. after all, cbs hung tough with dan rather, and we all see what that brought the network in terms of viewers and credibility.
Feb 4, 2005 - 11:51 am 23. WichitaBoy:I’m with Clio. And, I agree with #23 that academic freedom cannot be construed as carte blanche to spew whatever hateful garbage one wishes to spew. Can professors incite riots? Can they impugn their students publicly in class? Having granted that, though, there are obviously grave difficulties involved in trying to determine (as Allah would have it) exactly where the line should be drawn.
Feb 4, 2005 - 11:52 am 24. jvk:I got my reply from CNN today
“Eason was attempting to speak out on an issue that is important to news organizations all over the world. Unfortunately, he was not clear enough in explaining his assertion. He was responding to an assertion that all 63 journalists killed in Iraq were “collateral damage.” While the majority of the 63 journalists killed in Iraq have been killed by insurgents, the Pentagon has acknowledged that the U.S. military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists. Mr. Jordan emphatically does not believe that the U.S. Military intended to kill journalists and believes these accidents to be cases of “mistaken identity.”
“targeting” has become “mistaken identity.”
I believe it all depends on the target audience, as I think Roger and some posters on LGF have contended. They, Eason and others, still haven’t come to grips with the new realities of instant communication and fact checking that is the internet.
jvk
Feb 4, 2005 - 12:02 pm 25. Terrye:It will be difficult to go after Eason if he denies having made the accusations. He will just flutter his eyelashes and say Who me? Ah..but you misunderstand my meaning.
But I think he should be called on the carpet by other media for making the comments so that the world will know that he is making accusations that he refuses to back up. But then I think a lot of people know that already, they just like trashing soldiers.
As for Churchill, fire his ass. This is not a freedom of speech issue. If he wants to go stand on a street corner and rant and rave all day or until some passerby smacks him upside the head that is one thing, but to pass this off as an education is something else. People spend a lot of money to send their kids to college and this is not what they pay for.
Feb 4, 2005 - 12:46 pm 26. Lola:Well, certainly his students have learned something useful from the illustrious professor . . .
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=30&u=/latimests/20050204/ts_latimes/studentsdisruptmeetingwhileregentstrytodiscussprofessor
I wonder if their parents know what they’re paying for?
Feb 4, 2005 - 12:53 pm 27. swervin:Churchill shouldn’t be fired, Ethnic Studies programs should be dissolved. They promote divisiveness, not pride. They are uniformly allied with Statism or outright Marxism. Ethnic Studies programs at all public universities should be defunded and dismantled.
They are worse than useless, they are perniciously harmful to those students they are supposedly designed to help. These programs can only survive if they exaggerate the problems that do exist. Even within these programs the politics of which grievance group’s pain is larger leads to laughable in-fighting.
Junk degrees in junk disciplines shouldn’t be subsidized by tax payers. If someone can name anything positive that has resulted from an Ethnic Studies program anywhere I’m willing to change my mind.
As far as Jordan, keep on handing him all the rope he can handle, he’ll be twisting in the wind as CNN’s ratings and reputation continue to plummet. The multiplicity of options now available means that the death throws of media dinosaurs will cause wonderful opportunities for the fleet and warm-blooded rising in the media.
Feb 4, 2005 - 12:54 pm 28. notthisgirl:Re. Jordan, you should mosie on over to PowerLine and check out what was written about this subject today.
Disgraceful!
Feb 4, 2005 - 1:10 pm 29. PeterUK:I keep reading that Academia has been infiltrated by the Left,Academia is the Left,it is the wellsprig of all the cultural and political theory that has engulfed the West since the 1930.
It is the lair of the Gnome Chomskys,the belfry of a myriad Ward Churchills,the font of political correctness,the breeding ground of the Eason Jordans and recruiting station for the next generation of one world socialists.
The Comintern did its work well and laid the foundations for the exemplary work done by the KGB during the Vietnam War,the problem is institutional not just one of infiltration.
Feb 4, 2005 - 1:19 pm 30. DennisThePeasant:Actually, the firing/punishment of either Jordan or Churchill doesn’t come close to addressing what I think are the very real and serious issues raised by these incidents, which can be boiled down to a single question:
What does it say about the institutional integrity of either journalism or academia that either of these men were even in the position to do what they did?
Eason Jordan has admitted to acting as a paid surrogate and propagandist for Saddam Hussein. Was he sanctioned professionally? No. Instead he’s making speeches at the WEF for CNN.
Ward Churchill is a fake Indian, a fake professor (a M.A. from Bongwater Tech, in effect) in a fake humanity, and a fake revolutionary/activist. And the ugly fact is that all of this has been quite well known in the Boulder and Indian communities for some time. Did that interest anyone at U. of C.? No.
How is it that their respective professions have allowed them to thrive?
Feb 4, 2005 - 1:24 pm 31. vegetius:Side issue:
Has any one noticed that the word “Indian”,
is consistently used in the coverage of this story?
What happened to “Native-American”?
Did it get dropped from the PC lexicon??
I think he should keep his job and get promoted.
He can be the poster boy for what had become of so-called higher education.
Feb 4, 2005 - 1:28 pm 32. Paul:Peter UK:
“It is the lair of the Gnome Chomskys,the belfry of a myriad Ward Churchills,the font of political correctness,the breeding ground of the Eason Jordans and recruiting station for the next generation of one world socialists.
The Comintern did its work well and laid the foundations for the exemplary work done by the KGB during the Vietnam War,the problem is institutional not just one of infiltration.”
Exactly!
DTP:
“a M.A. from Bongwater Tech”.
Oh, that’s good!!
Feb 4, 2005 - 1:30 pm 33. Ari Tai:Imagine that you’ve been briefed by your own security people that being anywhere close to a firefight with advancing U.S. troops will likely get you killed, especially if you happen to be near something that resembles a weapon with a sight (anti-tank missile, artillery range-finder, RPG, shoulder-mounted camera…). And given that the military has lost so many people to these look-and-fire weapons (1st or 2nd casualty cause in Iraq (?)) I certainly wouldn’t risk pointing anything at a tank or a soldier from more than 10 feet away (and if they are looking thru night-vision goggles which highlight outlines and kill detail, not even then).
Mr. Jordan clearly thinks soldiers under-fire should treat a proven deadly-threat with the same respect as a truck with a big red-cross/crescent on it. And that the press has some privileged position (better than, say, women and children). Times and circumstances change. He screwed up and his lack-of-forethought (or outright bias) is responsible many for these deaths (esp. if he paid for, or even just encouraged, non-embedded video reporting). And I’d wager these (unvoiced) regrets are the reason for his (increasingly shrill) lashing out at anyone else in an attempt to shift the blame, if only to help him sleep at night. Or perhaps worse, he does not even see it – in the same way the left deludes itself by being unable to learn that the worst-ends results are often precisely due to their best-intentions (i.e. violent crime is inversely proportional to ability of the law-abiding to protect themselves).
To say nothing of condemning Saddam’s sons-in-law (and others) to death through his own sin-of-omission (and greed). Where this is the biblical definition of greed (not the great good of companies sharing the wealth with their people for winning the affection of their customers’ wallets by cut-throat commercial competition).
Jordan will get his reward. If not in this life, the next. If there are surviving children or relatives of the sons-in-law he allowed to be murdered they should sue him and CNN in the U.S. for whatever profits they made (times three) during the years these fools wittingly gave aid and comfort to the Baathists. Were it not for CNN (and others) propaganda (for Saddam, against sanctions, promoting Hamas’ and other “insurgents” in the region grievances as righteous) the Baathists might have fallen with “just” no-fly-zones, economic and diplomatic pressure, covert operations and the threat-of-direct military action. Imagine where we could have been if CNN had been a force for good instead, disinfecting the UN scandal, shaming old Europe, and exposing the Baathist enablers (the French 1T$+ commercial oil entanglement, other countries’ weapons deals, etc.).
Shame on him and those like him. This is why morality (an unwavering internal compass) is so important, much more important than written law. He must have started down this path in small steps and equivocations.
Feb 4, 2005 - 1:43 pm 34. Terrye:Dennis has a point and so does Ari. Who watches these people? Who is responsible for giving them their positions and allowing them to thrive?
Feb 4, 2005 - 1:58 pm 35. DennisThePeasant:Vegetius-
An interesting question. Ward Churchill doesn’t call himself an Indian…it’s ‘Native American’ or (and this is preferred) ‘indigenous’. However, it’s the American Indian Movement that is saying he isn’t an Indian, and the Indian Country Today is explicit in stating he isn’t an Indian and that his claims to both Indian ancestry and prominence as an activist are fraudulent. Neither use any term other than Indian.
It seems the whole Native American/Indigenous Peoples thingee is a Progessive Leftist schtick. Which makes sense, because it is becoming very clear that Churchill carried no credibility with his “own” people. It is also becoming clear that the Leftists he ran around with (Chomsky, Zinn and the like) only cared about his ancestry to the extent it was useful in promoting Anti-Americanism.
Feb 4, 2005 - 2:16 pm 36. Old Gunny:If the U.S. Marine Corps “was” targeting journalists, there wouldn’t be any of thos SOBs left in country.
Feb 4, 2005 - 2:43 pm 37. richard mcenroe:Ward Churchill’s bogus Indian heritage can actually be a very profitable con.
I know of at least one man who got an SBA loan because he claimed to be a full-blooded Kiowa (you know, that branch of the tribe that grew up on the Grand Concourse in the Bronx).
Here in California, we had a sister and two brothers who suddenly discovered they were a “tribe” when they wanted to start a casino. The state licensed them, the two brothers killed each other in a drug deal and now this “tribe” of one woman has her own casino.
“Native American” status will definitely get you preferential treatment under affirmative-action programs.
And it’s a great intimidator to the chardonnay-sippin’ set in the faculty lounge.
Feb 5, 2005 - 9:30 am 38. richard mcenroe:Just a thought. Maybe they can’t/shouldn’t fire him, but there’s no reason they have to assign him any classes to teach…
Feb 5, 2005 - 11:56 am