This essay you're all foaming at the mouth about was apparently expanded into a book 'The Justice of Roosting Chickens' which it seems won the Gustavus Meyers Human Rights Award. You know what this means? There are more of them out there! Time to re 'constitute' the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and hunt them down. The fact is, and you all know it, if he hadn't written the 9/11 essay and this book none of us would even know his name. He is, in effect, a whistleblower and we all know what happens to them - even though I don't accept his thesis on 9/11 (it's all much worse than what he puts forward) most of the things he discusses are historical fact. The story about the infected blankets being given to the Indians is just the usual red herring: who gives a damn if they gave them infected blankets they stole their land and massacred them, didn't they? This is an old trick of casting doubt on part of the story to cast doubt on the whole. I know for a fact that other indigenous people have been deliberately infected with disease and given flour and other food laced with strychnine. And the things everyone knows for certain were done to the American Indians are simply stomach-turning in their horror so let's not pretend Ward Churchill invented that particular genocide or even exaggerated it. The suffering of the Iraqis under the sanctions imposed by the United States has been well documented, but the plain fact is the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing can excuse what was done, especially since it didn't do a damn thing to remove Saddam Hussein and inflicted pointless suffering and even death on civilians. It was a human rights violation, pure and simple. And look at these numbers and tell me they make sense - 3,000 Americans are murdered by their own government and military so the Pentagon then goes and murders 1,000,000 Iraqis who had nothing to do with it and makes 4-5,000,000 more refugees. No one knows how many they've killed in Afghanistan because they 'don't keep those figures'. The only thing they learned from Vietnam is that body counts don't count. The Pentagon still believes if you have the biggest dick you can fuck anyone you want and no pipsqueak like Ward Churchill is going to pass judgement on real men with lots of gold braid. Tally ho!

Churchill's lawyers objected to jurors who were educated and mature, so the jury ended up being a naive and gullible group, the perfect dupes for the con job Churchill's lawyers pulled off in the courtroom.

So all people under the age of 35 are inherently naive and gullible? Thanks!

Any honest researcher, however, can read the university's investigative report and see for themselves, as you did, the pattern of deliberate dishonesty and fraud that characterizes Churchill's scholarship.

Way to poison the well. Unfortunately, the Investigative Committee's only demonstrated "pattern of deliberate dishonesty and fraud" is the report itself. The committee repeatedly ignored evidence, quote mined sources, misrepresented legal cases, and even, ironically, plagiarized its sources. (That's real plagiarism, by the way, not ghostwriting called plagiarism.)

All this can be demonstrated by the charges filed against the CU Investigative Committee:

http://www.wardchurchill.net/documents.html

Mr. Churchill was never able to prove his eligibility in accordance with our membership laws, but was to be honored because of his promise to write our history, and his pledge to help and honor the UKB. To date, Churchill has done nothing in regards to his promise and pledge.

Unfortunately, reality disagrees with this, and it's worth noting that Churchill has never been officially *unenrolled* from the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee.

Churchill assisted in the publication of a book by Georgia Rae Leeds titled The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. This can be confirmed by contacting the publisher. Churchill also gave the keynote address at the first conference ever devoted to the Keetowah, which was organized at the University of Arkansas. This can be confirmed by consulting the book (p. 215).

Wickliffe is also dishonest in claiming that associate memberships were honorary. They are not. An associate membership is granted to people who are less than one quarter Cherokee by birth, in contrast to a full membership which is for anyone one-quarter Cherokee or more by birth, and the honorary membership (obviously) has no such restrictions.

Since this statement is chock full of demonstrable lies (demonstrated, in fact, at the link below), and since Churchill's enrollment has never been revoked, this does seem like a bit of political arse-covering. 2005, after all, was the year that the far-right discovered Churchill's "Some People Push Back" essay which ultimately became the causus belli for the War Against Ward Churchill.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070813224436/tryworks.org/blog/the-churchill-smear/now-about-ward-churchill%E2%80%99s-cherokee-enrollment%E2%80%A6/

Well done. Thank you for shedding light on a figure who has been made out to be a victim by many in the academic world. I am saddened to see rigorous academic scholarship so often pushed aside for the sake of advocacy, and hope that those in the academic world recognize that real academic freedom must include a willingness to embrace the truth, even when said truth may hinder one's own agenda.

Mr. Kamiya, thank you for writing a thorough and honest summary of Ward Churchill's deceitful scholarship. Churchill's lawyers objected to jurors who were educated and mature, so the jury ended up being a naive and gullible group, the perfect dupes for the con job Churchill's lawyers pulled off in the courtroom. Any honest researcher, however, can read the university's investigative report and see for themselves, as you did, the pattern of deliberate dishonesty and fraud that characterizes Churchill's scholarship.

As for Churchill's lawyer, David Lane, saying Churchill is a Keetoowah Cherokee Indian, Lane knows this is false. The United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians has denounced Churchill in the following official statement. Who has the final word on whether Churchill is a Keetoowah Cherokee Indian? The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, or Churchill's lawyer? You decide.

http://www.indianz.com/News/2005/008234.asp

"Mr. Churchill was never able to prove his eligibility in accordance with our membership laws, but was to be honored because of his promise to write our history, and his pledge to help and honor the UKB. To date, Churchill has done nothing in regards to his promise and pledge.

"The United Keetoowah Band, a sovereign Nation, has the sole right to determine our membership and interpret our laws. The term "Indian" refers not only to an ethnic category, but it is also a political determination based on our unique relationship with the Federal Government. Mr. Churchill mocks the basic fundamental principles of Tribal Sovereignty when he consistently refers to enrollment as a "pedigree" and compares enrollment to "dogs" and "Nazi policies." Additionally, his rhetoric did not prevent him from approaching the UKB and seek a so-called "dog pedigree."

"All of Churchill's past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band, and should be respected by all media, government and private institutions to be so."