What amazes me is that he has such a receptive audience. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, given the vituperativeness of the last election, but this guy would seem to be beyond the pale, even for the fringe.

In any event, I found your site via a referrer log from my website. Not sure where on your site the link is, but I hope it was complimentary.

Cheers.

you are right; that is why it is so funny that he initially found the question unanswerable. he does come back into the room later to address the tantrum-causing question:

Moments later, he returned, saying reporters should do their homework and if they did, they would know he is in fact a member of the Keetoowah Cherokee tribe in Oklahoma — he’s told mainland reporters he is one-sixteenth Cherokee. He even said to check with the Rocky Mountain News. But a Feb. 3, 2005, article entitled “Prof’s Indian roots disputed” in this publication documents Churchill’s claims as false. The report reads:

“The United Keetoowah Band Cherokee says University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is not a member of their tribe. ‘He’s not in the database at all and is not a member of the Keetoowah,’ said Georgia Mauldin, the tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla.” [source]

the issue for me is: he has furthered his career by claiming to be of native american descent (an inordinate number of scholarships and university appointments are practically given away to people of native american ancestry). if he is lying about his ethnicity, then his entire “career” comes into question.

i am unsure how we would have referred visitors to your site (as we have not previously linked to you), but i will remember to visit in the future whenever i become hungry while blogging.

take care!

Anybody who uses Ann Coulter to defend a point of view is discredited.

what about anyone who uses facts to defend a point of view? please refute even ONE POINT ms. coulter makes in either piece, kind sir.

while she may be abrasive, she earns the right to be so with impeccable research that surpasses in quality all of the rest of the mainstream media. her pieces on churchill are well-researched and completely accurate.

We might disagree with the man’s ideas, but he has the same freedom of speech you all have in critizing him. I think it’s a wonderful thing to be able to have such opposite points of view and still coexist in these United States of America.

i’m not saying we can’t coexist. he’s welcome to live anywhere he wants, even in the apartment next to mine. gosh, i hope he would move in; it would make for some fabulous doorway discussions!

on the other hand, there’s no reason to defend him on the basis of “freedom of speech”. freedom of speech is something the government cannot deny a person. thus, no one expects the government to lock ward churchill away for his remarks. however, institutions can make people accountable for their actions (AND SPEECH!) if they so choose. if you will permit me, i’ll quote thomas sowell:

Too many people…seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences for what you have said. If you believe that, try insulting your boss when you go to work tomorrow. Better yet, try insulting your spouse before going to bed tonight. [source]

the only thing protecting him is the ambiguous shield we call “tenure”. but even this is called into question since no one (not even ward churchill) seems to be able to verify his ethnicity, and his purported ethnicity (1/16th cherokee) was a major part of his getting tenure.