My Question About Ward Churchill

8 April 2009 at 12:53 pm Peter G. Klein 8 comments

| Peter Klein |

I haven’t followed the Ward Churchill case too closely, but was aware that last week a Denver jury ruled that he had been fired unjustly from his tenured faculty position at the University of Colorado (and presumably will be reinstated). Fabio’s post yesterday reminded me of the biggest puzzle about this whole thing: How on earth did a person without a terminal degree, with few scholarly publications, and no record of the usual academic activities (membership on journal editorial boards, leadership positions in professional societies, mentoring of graduate students, etc.) get to be a tenured full professor at a major public university?

Assuming the wikipedia entry is correct, we learn:

Churchill received his B.A. in technological communications in 1974 and M.A. in communications theory in 1975, both from Sangamon State University, now the University of Illinois at Springfield.^[8] Churchill began working as an affirmative action officer at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1978. He also lectured on Indian issues in the ethnic studies program. In 1990, he was hired as an associate professor, although he did not possess the academic doctorate usually required for such a position. The following year he was granted tenure in the communications department, without the usual six-year probationary period, after being declined by the sociology and political science departments. He was presented with an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from Alfred University after giving a lecture there about American Indian history in 1992. He moved to the new ethnic studies department in 1996 and was promoted to full professor in 1997. He became chair of the department in June 2002.^[12]^[13]^[14]

Out of curiosity I googled his CV and found this copy (not hosted on a university site, so possibly inaccurate). There are a few items listed under “Scholarly Essays.” I’ve never heard of any of the journals (except Social Text, Stanley Fish’s journal and the hapless victim of Alan Sokal’s famous prank). Maybe they are highly ranked in the field of ethnic studies; I don’t know (but would be curious to see the impact factors).

Could someone tell me: Would this kind of academic record get someone a tenured full professorship at the University of Colorado in, say, biochemistry or political science?

Entry filed under: - Klein -, Education.

Kahneman on Judgment and Intuition Kaplan on Sutton

8 Comments Add your own

1. fabiorojas | 8 April 2009 at 1:13 pm

Peter:

It is often the case that the pool of qualified or willing persons (PhD from a legit social science/humanities program) is very small for ethnic studies. It also the case that these programs are small teaching units. It sometimes happens that administrators will allow political activists to teach in these units. Appointing activists is also something that is done to “chill out” campus politics, especially in the absence of regular scholars. For these reasons, if you look at ethnic studies programs, you’ll see the occasional non-PhD teaching in the unit.

My guess about Churchill is that his reputation as a writer and political type was enough to justify the appointment somewhere in the university and it wasn’t to hard to move him into the ethnic studies group.

I should also note that his editorial work has had some impact. His volume on COINTELPRO (the FBI’s anti-civil rights group infiltration program) is a standard reference for people interested in the history of the 1960s. I own a copy. Native American Studies is not my thing, but I’ve heard that his writings do have real followings among super-hard core left types.
2. REW | 8 April 2009 at 2:20 pm

Peter,
I have harbored a mixture of resentment/disbelief over the Churchill record. Fabio makes the point well. Ward Churchill is NOT in biochem, poly sci, or parks and recreation, wherein we would expect the normal credentials.

One of our favorite authors, Richard Powers, is a tenured full prof and holder of one of the most prestigious chairs at the University of Illinois (http://www.beckman.illinois.edu/directory/rpowers) and is housed in the cognitive neurosciences research group — all this with an MA in English!

I sit on a search committee for a new endowed chair in business journalism at our top-rated J-school. The likely outcome is that the first holder of the chair will have an MA at best. On the other hand, it will be a non-tenure track endowed chair!

Thank God a university is not bound by universality in its expectations of each and every faculty member.
3. Peter Klein | 8 April 2009 at 4:10 pm

Good points guys. Randy, I certainly agree that diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and qualifications is desirable. Powers is a special case! And clearly faculty in professional schools like law, journalism, business, etc. will tend to have different academic credentials than faculty in the arts and sciences. But ethnic studies is not a professional or vocational discipline, is it? I can see how an “activist” — the analogue to a practitioner, I guess, in this context — could be a valuable member of a public-policy department or school of social work. But ethnic studies is in Arts & Sciences at Colorado (and I assume most other places; Fabio, correct me if I’m wrong).

Fabio, how long have departments of ethnic studies been around? Why is the supply of PhD-holding faculty so low, relative to the number of courses and programs offered? Are these classes in large demand among undergraduates? Or are the departments established, and kept alive, to satisfy other campus requirements, as you suggest above?
4. fabiorojas | 8 April 2009 at 6:56 pm

Peter: Didn’t you see the talk??? You were in the front row!

Alright, seriously, here’s the quick answer:

“how long have departments of ethnic studies been around? ”

these programs have been around since 1969 or so.

“Why is the supply of PhD-holding faculty so low, relative to the number of courses and programs offered?”

multiple reasons: some courses are in areas where PhD aren’t needed – like a course on jazz performance; also these courses rarely have the resources or prestige, so it’s hard to attract strong scholars in regular areas; there are only a handful of PhD programs in ethnic studies, so there is no internal supply.

“Are these classes in large demand among undergraduates? ”

Intro courses tend to popular, advanced courses are often small. Basically, a lot of people think it might be cool to study Black History, but you don’t want to major in it.

“Or are the departments established, and kept alive, to satisfy other campus requirements, as you suggest above?”

Part of it is definitely campus politics, especially in the early days. But recently, they seem to have developed a particular niche and in some cases it’s expanding as a graduate field.

You also wrote: “clearly faculty in professional schools like law, journalism, business, etc. will tend to have different academic credentials than faculty in the arts and sciences. But ethnic studies is not a professional or vocational discipline, is it?”

For the most part, it isn’t, though they will occasionally teach courses on education, or in one case I found, business. Ethnic studies is really regular humanities/social science field.

Think about it this way: (a) university teaching can provide a modest, but steady, income; (b) activists started the field, so it’s credible to have an activist teach it; (c) some activists are committed to minorities, so it’s not a stretch for them to teach a course black history or indian issues; (d) top scholars in traditional areas (e.g., black history) don’t rush to these units.
5. REW | 8 April 2009 at 9:22 pm

I entered Cornell the year after African-American students took over Willard Straight Hall (the student union) in protest for general mistreatment and for the purpose of demanding an ethnic studies program. It is 40 years later and the Africana Studies and Research Center is thriving and the faculty typically hold the doctorate.

I watched the University of Illinois struggle with native american studies only 6-8 years ago. There is now a physical location (Native American House), a curriculum, and a staff of 6-7 professors with various credentials. I hope it thrives in the same way that Africana Studies did and I expect it will, since ethnic studies is a coherent field in humanities and the social sciences and there is double-loop learning at work.

The current generation of native studies scholars doesn’t have the “peculiar” credentials of Ward Churchill; he may be an anachronism. If so, should CU hire him back or hire someone better to replace him?
6. teageegeepea | 9 April 2009 at 12:54 am

Why does it “chill out” campus politics to hire an activist? Isn’t that like letting the proverbial barbarian in the gates? I thought part of the problem behind campus rioting in the 60s was that there were faculty that supported it.
7. fabiorojas | 9 April 2009 at 9:31 am

Teageegeepea: Think of it this way – in the early days of ethnic studies, administrators wanted to see the protest go away and students wanted an “authentic” person to teach. It would be lovely to get famous PhD Dr. X, but it’s unlikely. So occasionally, activists would be hired to fill the gaps – and the student would see it as legitimate.
8. fabiorojas | 9 April 2009 at 9:33 am

Last note: REW is correct. As I explain in chapter 6 of my book, the majority of faculty now have PhD’s or terminal degrees in the field. So ethnic studies is way more professional than it was in its first days. There are now 7 phd programs in prestigious schools. But still, you do see the occasional Churchill style activist sitting around.