More Ward Stuff

David Kopel has an excellent post up at Volokh that provides a great summation of the fraud that is Ward Churchill. As I’ve noted before, the real scandal here is not what he’s said but that he was given tenure.
Here is Churchill’s faculty page. Please notice the title: “Professor”
Now what does the CU Faculty Handbook have to say about this?

Here are some relevant quotes form the faculty handbook concerning tenured faculty:

(6)1 Professor – Professors should have the terminal degree appropriate to their field or its equivalent, and (A) a record that, taken as a whole, is judged to be excellent; (B) a record of significant contribution to both graduate and undergraduate education, unless individual or departmental circumstances can be shown to require a stronger emphasis, or singular focus, on one or the other; and (C) a record, since receiving tenure and promotion to associate professor, that indicates substantial, significant, and continued growth, development, and accomplishment in teaching, research, scholarship or creative work, and service.


2. Evaluation Committee
a. For the purpose of assisting the primary unit in making its recommendations on appointment, reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion, each primary unit shall elect or appoint (having previously voted on the method to be followed) from among its members an evaluation committee for each candidate being considered during an academic year. The committees may consist of both tenured and nontenured members. Such committees shall take into account and carefully evaluate the following:
(1) Information concerning the teaching ability of the candidate including the opinions of the candidate’s students and colleagues and other qualified individuals who may have observed the candidate’s classroom presentations;
(2) The candidate’s scholarly, creative, and/or research efforts, including the opinions of colleagues relative thereto and written publications which the committee should thoroughly examine;
(3) Opinions of others in the candidate’s field or in cognate fields who have particular knowledge of the candidate’s scholarly, creative, and/or research efforts;
(4) The candidate’s University and public service including the opinion of colleagues and others relative thereto;
(5) Any other information submitted by the candidate that the candidate believes will assure an adequate consideration and evaluation of his/her appointment, reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure;
(6) The opinions of members of other units within the University community who are competent to judge the candidate and have a legitimate interest in the appointment, reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure recommendation; and
(7) The opinions in writing of scholars from outside the University and from various locations who are qualified to judge the candidate. Such outside opinions are mandatory in cases of recommendations for tenure and promotion. (The candidate will be asked to provide names of scholars that should be considered in selecting external reviewers.)
Examples of appropriate criteria to be considered in evaluating teaching, research or creative work, and service are included in Attachment 1.
b. After diligently pursuing the procedures outlined above, the evaluation committee shall report its findings concerning appointment, reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure to the primary unit which acts on behalf of the unit.

Am MA from Sangamon State (not Sangaman Ward; check the piece of paper on your wall) somehow does not seem to be a ‘terminal’ degree.
The many issues that Kopel lists seem to indicate that CU’s procedures were not “diligently pursu(ed).”
No wonder 199 members of the CU faculty finds the investigation into Churchill “frightening”.

Comments are closed.

Image | WordPress Themes