| Revision as of 18:33, 8 February 2008 editLulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,790 edits Revert to revision 189861996 dated 2008-02-08 01:28:54 by Nandesuka using popups← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:47, 30 January 2016 edit undoCurro2 (talk | contribs)5,473 edits Already redirects | ||
| (445 intermediate revisions by 93 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| The '''Ward Churchill misconduct issues''' involve accusations of ] against ] and an investigation by the ] where he was a professor. On May 16, 2006, the committee released its investigative committee findings.<ref>. Colorado.edu.</ref> The investigative committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in academic misconduct. In addition, the committee found him "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions." | |||
| The University's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct voted that Churchill should be dismissed. Chancellor Phil DiStefano then recommended to the University's Board of Regents that Churchill be dismissed. After an investigation of Churchill's past research, Churchill was fired by the University on ], ] for research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification.<ref name="misconduct_report">{{citation | |||
| | title = Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill | |||
| | first1 = Marianne | last1 = Wesson | |||
| | first2 = Robert | last2 = Clinton | |||
| | first3 = José | last3 = Limón | |||
| | first4 = Marjorie | last4 = McIntosh | |||
| | first5 = Michael | last5 = Radelet | |||
| | year = 2006 | |||
| | month = May 9 | |||
| | publisher = University of Colorado at Boulder | |||
| | url = http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf | |||
| }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | |||
| | title =Ward Churchill The Research Misconduct Inquiry | |||
| | work = colorado.edu | |||
| | url =http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/ | |||
| | accessdate=2006-07-03 | |||
| }}</ref> Churchill has denied any wrongdoing, and has vowed to contest his firing in the court system. | |||
| ==Background== | |||
| {{main|Ward Churchill|Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy}} | |||
| In late September 2001 ] published a controversial essay about the ], entitled "]". In that essay, Churchill argued that American foreign policies provoked the attacks and questioned the innocence of 9/11 victims characterizing some as "little ]". National attention was drawn to the essay in January 2005, when Churchill was invited to speak at ] as a panelist in a debate titled "Limits of Dissent". This increased attention led to a greater examination of other works by Churchill as well as the man himself. As a result, allegations, both old and new, were raised against Churchill accusing him of ] and ], and questioning his claims of ] heritage. | |||
| In response, ] administrators ordered an investigation into the allegations concerning academic misconduct. The committee declined to address the issue of Churchill's ethnic heritage. | |||
| ==University of Colorado Investigation== | |||
| In February 2005, during the height of the media firestorm surrounding his "little Eichmans" comments, Churchill publicly challenged anyone to find fault with his scholarship. The media took up the challenge and a number of allegations of research misconduct were reported. | |||
| Federal regulations that define "]" specify three types of misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Churchill was investigated by the University of Colorado's standing Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, which found that he had falsified and fabricated information, and plagiarized two different essays.<ref> by Casey Freeman, ''Colorado Daily''(May 16, 2006).</ref> | |||
| ===Findings of fabrication=== | |||
| ====Smallpox blanket genocide==== | |||
| In at least six different essays, Churchill alleged that the ] deliberately distributed ]-infected blankets to the ] Indians in ] to spark a smallpox pandemic, and that hundreds of thousands of Indians died of smallpox as a consequence. Other scholars who have studied this episode agree that smallpox killed many Indians in this time frame, but deny that there is any evidence to support Churchill's allegations of deliberate genocide by means of smallpox blankets. They also charge Churchill with exaggerating the death toll and with falsifying the sources he cites in support of his claims. Professor Thomas Brown wrote in the journal Plagiary that, "Every aspect of Churchill's tale is fabricated."<ref> by Thomas Brown, in </ref> | |||
| In November 2004, ], a professor emeritus of political science at the ], published an essay charging Churchill with misrepresenting his sources. Lewy says Churchill's assertion that the U.S. Army intentionally spread smallpox among American Indians by distributing infected blankets in 1837 is false. "He just makes things up," said Lewy. Lewy calls Churchill's claim of 100,000 deaths from the incident "obviously absurd".<ref></ref><ref></ref> | |||
| In an article in the journal Plagiary, entitled "Did the US Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill's Genocide Rhetoric", ] sociology professor Thomas Brown also accused Churchill of fabricating the incident and falsifying his sources.<ref>http://www.plagiary.org/smallpox-blankets.pdf</ref> Brown argues that Churchill's claim that his cited source--Russell Thornton--supports Churchill's smallpox blanket allegations is a falsification of Thornton. Brown also charges Churchill with fabricating the presence of US Army personnel on the scene, with fabricating the distribution of blankets taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis, and with concealing evidence in his possession that disconfirms his allegations. | |||
| Three of the authors that Churchill cites in support of his smallpox thesis, Evan Connell, RG Robertson and Russell Thornton, have rejected Churchill's interpretation of their work. Thornton characterized Churchill's smallpox thesis as "fabrication." <ref name="Vaughan">{{cite web | url=http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3833539,00.html | title=Did Ward Churchill falsely accuse the U.S. Army in small pox epidemic? Our findings: His claim isn't supported by the sources he has cited | work=Rocky Mountain News | author=Kevin Vaughan | date=June 5 | year=2005}}</ref> | |||
| Churchill continues to maintain that his description of events at Fort Clark is correct, and that he has obtained new supporting data.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3833539,00.html] | title=RMN article | work=Rocky Mountain News | date=November 1 | year=2005 | author=Ward Churchill (quoted)}}</ref> | |||
| The May 2006 report by the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado corroborated Churchill's critics. The committee concluded that for over a period of 10 years, Churchill consistently falsified his sources and fabricated claims regarding the Fort Clark epidemic. The committee criticized Churchill for failing to recognize and correct his errors, and for his insistence that he intends to republish his indictment of genocide in the future without substantive changes. The committee also criticized Churchill for answering his critics with ad hominem attacks instead of reason and evidence. | |||
| Additionally, the committee found Churchill guilty of serious research misconduct in his claims that ] initiated a smallpox epidemic against ] Indians when he visited New England in 1614. The committee found that the source Churchill cited for his claim (Manitou and Providence: Europeans, Indians, and the Making of New England, 1500-1643 by Neal Salisbury) actually gave evidence contrary to his claim, namely that Smith viewed the Indians as a potential source of labor to be exploited militarily (rather than exterminated) and that the epidemic did not break out until at least eighteen months after Smith had left the area. Based on these, and other inconsistencies, the committee determined that Churchill had fabricated this event and cited sources in a misleading way. <ref>Report of the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder concerning Allegations of Academic Misconduct against Professor Ward Churchill, pp 33-38 available at http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf, Accessed 22 Dec, 2006.</ref> | |||
| ====General Allotment Act==== | |||
| In two articles published in the 1990s, ] law professor John P. LaVelle, an enrolled member of the ], alleged that Churchill has repeatedly published false claims about the ], mistakenly attributing a "]" standard of Indianness to the Allotment Act.<ref name="X6843">http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/allotment-act.pdf</ref><ref> http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/american-indian-quarterly.pdf</ref> | |||
| Churchill in his defense acknowledges that the term "blood quantum" is not used in the General Allotment Act, but maintains that the term is an accurate summary of the what he describes as the ] component of the Act. According to Churchill, " blood-quantum standard… through intermarriage, future generations of Indians would be of progressively less native blood, until they couldn't meet the legal standard and tribes would disappear altogether."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3838645,00.html|author=Berny Morson|title=The charge: Mischaracterization|work=Rocky Mountain News}}</ref> | |||
| The Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado, released in May 2006, agreed with LaVelle that the blood quantum requirement ''is not'' present in the Dawes Act, and that Churchill had repeatedly misrepresented the requirement as falling within the Act itself. The Committee also observed that most tribes did choose to impose blood quantum standards for tribal membership during the historical era of the General Allotment Act, and that Churchill's larger argument thus had some validity, even though he misrepresented the contents of the Act.<ref>http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchill</ref> | |||
| LaVelle agrees with Churchill that the Act represents "a contemptible effort by Congress … to strip Indian tribes of all collectively held lands, force Indian people to assimilate into white society, and generally undermine the tribes' territorial sovereignty." However, LaVelle argues that Churchill has falsified the Act in order to support his eugenics charges. LaVelle notes that the Code of Federal Regulations gave tribes free rein to define their membership in any way they choose for the purposes of allotment, and that the tribes themselves have chosen to set blood quantum standards for membership. LaVelle argues that Churchill's attack on the tribes' standards constitutes an attack on tribal sovereignty. LaVelle complains that Churchill disguises his attack on tribal blood quantum standards by falsely attributing the source of those standards to the Allotment Act.<ref name="X6843"/><ref>http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/american-indian-quarterly.pdf</ref> | |||
| According to LaVelle, Churchill has not responded directly to LaVelle's specific charges to explain in detail how the Act introduced a blood quantum. LaVelle went through Churchill's works essay by essay, and says that Churchill had not cited evidence for his claim that the Allotment Act imposed a blood-quantum standard: ''This lack of a supporting citation is explained by the fact that … the (Dawes Act) never contained any such federally imposed eligibility 'code' at all.''<ref name="X6843"/> LaVelle states that part of his initial concern was that Churchill's claims about the Dawes Act—which LaVelle characterizes as a "hoax"—were "seeping" into the scholarly literature.<ref name="X6843"/> | |||
| Churchill responded to LaVelle's critique by comparing the number of times his articles have been cited to the number of times LaVelle has been cited:<ref name="Frank interview">{{cite web|url=http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07182005.html|author=Joshua Frank|work=] (July 18, 2005)|title=An Interview with Ward Churchill: Accusations and Smears|accessdate=May 24|accessyear=2006}}</ref> ''In academia, you measure the influence of your publications via what's called the "]," that is, a literal count of the number of times your material is cited by others. Neither of LaVelle's essays on the Allotment Act, the first of which came out in the American Indian Quarterly almost a decade ago, has ever been cited by an Indian legal scholar.'' Churchill acknowledges elsewhere that LaVelle's work on the Allotment Act has been cited by two scholars; but uses a phrase from Robert Porter, in describing LaVelle's legal interpretation as being designed to "put a happy face on colonialism."<ref name="Frank interview"/><ref>{{cite journal|author=Robert B. Porter|title=Two Kinds of Indians, Two Kinds of Indian Nation Sovereignty: A Surreply to Professor LaVelle|journal=Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy|pages=629, 645–48|volume=11|year=2002|url=http://www.ku.edu/~kulaw/oldsite/jrnl/v11n3/porterv11p629.pdf|type=pdf}}.</ref> Churchill claims of his own citation that he was "as of mid-2001, the most cited ethnic studies scholar in the country".<ref name="Frank interview"/> | |||
| The subcommittee contrasted the narrow issues of proper scholarship with the broader historical patterns under discussion: | |||
| {{Quotation|he Committee finds that no general hoax of the type suggested by some of Professor LaVelle’s broader claims was perpetrated by Professor Churchill, since the core of his broad point (i.e., that the General Allotment Act of 1887, as implemented, required—albeit by implication—some Indian blood quantum to be eligible for an allotment) is correct, or at least clearly arguable. We find as well, however, that most of details and embellishments of that claim made by Professor Churchill are historically inaccurate or literally incorrect. Getting the general point correct but virtually all of the historical details wrong is certainly not the level of careful professional work one would expect of an ethnic studies scholar writing on important historical events in Indian studies.|Investigative Committee|CU Standing Committee on Research Misconduct}} | |||
| The Investigative Committee concluded that Churchill had fabricated his claim that the GAA contains a blood quantum, and had falsified his evidence in support of that claim. Specifically, the committee stated that Churchill used as "independent" evidence for his claims two essays that Churchill later described as having been ghostwritten by himself "from the ground up." (See ], below) The committee also criticized Churchill for answering his critics with ] instead of reason and evidence. | |||
| ===Findings of plagiarism=== | |||
| The University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee concluded that Ward Churchill plagiarized the writing of three different authors. | |||
| ====Annette Jaimes and Rebecca Robbins==== | |||
| John LaVelle was the first to publicly note that several of Churchill's essays share similarities with an earlier essay by Annette Jaimes, Churchill's ex-wife. Additional plagiarism allegations stem from portions of an essay Churchill published in 1993 that closely resemble a 1992 essay published by Rebecca L. Robbins. However, "LaVelle did not accuse Churchill of , one of the most serious offenses in academia. On the contrary, LaVelle speculated that Churchill might have been the author of all the works. The ideology, rhetoric and writing style" of the Jaimes piece are 'interchangeable' with positions that Churchill takes in his books, LaVelle wrote".<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=1993 essay also raises questions|author=Berny Morson|work=Rocky Mountain News (June 6, 2005)|accessdate=May 24|accessyear=2006}}</ref> | |||
| Churchill also asserts that he himself is the original author of the material in question, and thus has not plagiarized either Jaimes or Robbins: "I'm free to make disposition of my ideas and my material any way I see fit… That's my understanding of the situation… If there's an issue around that, then there's an issue around that." Churchill says that he ghostwrote the material to help Jaimes' career: "All you need to do is take a piece of Annette Jaimes' material, which is published—and she's published things that I didn't (write) - take her stuff, stack it up next (to mine), set it side by side, and read the two… You tell me who's writing this. We don't need to get into forensics to do it."<ref name="X2250"></ref> | |||
| Jaimes denies that Churchill wrote the material in dispute, and calls him "a liar." Jaimes complains that Churchill is jeopardizing her career to defend himself from the plagiarism allegations, and said "He's despicable." Robbins has refused to comment publicly on the matter, but Jaimes says that she saw an early draft of Robbins' essay, and that the matter in question is original to Robbins.<ref name="X2250"/> | |||
| Because both Robbins and Jaimes refused to testify for the committee, it took Churchill's word that he was the original author of the essays published under Robbins and Jaimes's names. However, the committee still found Churchill guilty of "serious research misconduct" with regards to the Robbins and Jaimes essays, for failing to follow accepted practices of attributing authorship, and for citing in works published under his own name to these essays that he had ghostwritten, as if they were independent sources. | |||
| ====Dam the Dams==== | |||
| University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee also investigated allegations that Churchill plagiarized a pamphlet entitled "The Water Plot"—originally published by ], a Canadian activist group in 1972—and republished it under his own name several times.<ref name="X3236"></ref> | |||
| Churchill first re-published the "Water Plot" essay in 1989, when he credited the piece both to the original authors as well as to the "Institute for Natural Progress." In three subsequent publications, twice in 1993 and once in 2002, Churchill took sole credit for substantially the same essay. Churchill says that he did not plagiarize the essay in 1993, but rather that the editors of ] incorrectly excised Dam the Dams from the ]. Churchill also says he did not plagiarize in 2002, because he added additional material of his own to the essay, and because he cited Dam the Dams as one of his sources in the footnotes.<ref name="X3236"/> | |||
| The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill repeatedly plagiarized the Water Plot pamphlet, and that Churchill's "misconduct was not accidental, but deliberate."<ref name="X5823">http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf</ref>. | |||
| ====Fay Cohen==== | |||
| The University of Colorado's investigative committee determined that Churchill had plagiarized the work of Professor ] of ], ], and republished it in a book edited by his wife Annette Jaimes. The previous year, Churchill had edited his own book of collected essays, which had included Cohen’s chapter on fishing rights. Churchill then solicited Cohen’s essay for republication in his wife’s book. Cohen refused to grant Churchill and Jaimes permission to republish the essay. | |||
| In Jaimes’ book, the essay in question is attributed to the "Institute for Natural Progress," the same pseudonym under which Churchill had previously published the disputed "Water Plot" essay. In the back matter, Jaimes writes that Churchill "assumed the lead role in preparing" the essay; he characterized his role as similar to a newspaper’s "rewrite man," who takes materials gathered by others and works them into a final version for publication. | |||
| After the Jaimes book was published, Cohen asked lawyers at her university to assess her rights in the matter. An internal Dalhousie University report concluded that "he article … is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said, summarizing the report's findings in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News. | |||
| Churchill says that he has not committed plagiarism because he never said he wrote the essay.<ref></ref> The CU investigative committee found Churchill's defense "implausible," observing that Churchill did claim authorship of the essay in his official Faculty Report of Professional Activity for the year 1991, followed by the parenthetical notation "for the Institute for Natural Progress." The committee concluded that Churchill's involvement in plagiarizing Cohen's essay constitutes an act of research misconduct.<ref name="X5823"/> | |||
| ===Result of Investigation=== | |||
| Seven misconduct charges against Churchill have been investigated by the University of Colorado's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. The Committee has defined its jurisdiction narrowly in Churchill's case, limited to the three dimensions of research misconduct that are specified in the federal regulations. The Standing Committee has declined to pursue the various charges of copyright violation that do not meet the legal definition of "plagiarism" and are not covered in the federal misconduct regulations. The Committee's investigative subcommittee has completed its investigation into the various charges of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification, brought by Professors Brown, Lavelle, and Cohen, a charge of fabrication published by Kevin Vaughan of the Rocky Mountain News,<ref name="Vaughan"/> as well as Churchill's alleged plagiarism of the "Water Plot" pamphlet and the Fay Cohen essay. | |||
| The University released its investigative committee findings on ], ]. The committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct," including four counts of falsifying information, two counts of fabricating information, two counts of plagiarizing the works of others, improperly reporting the results of studies, and failing to “comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.” | |||
| Following the sub-committee report's release, Churchill called the report "self-contradictory" and "patently false". | |||
| {{Quotation|As things stand, the entire procedure appears to be little more than a carefully-orchestrated effort to cast an aura of legitimacy over an entirely illegitimate set of predetermined outcomes. It follows that I reject and will vigorously contest each and every finding of misconduct.<ref name="Churchill">{{cite web | url=http://counterpunch.org/churchill05162006.html | title=A Travesty of an "Investigation" | work=Counterpunch | author=Ward Churchill | date=May 16 | year=2006}}</ref>|Ward Churchill|A Travesty of an "Investigation"}} | |||
| The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct disagreed on what sanctions should be imposed on Churchill. Six members voted for dismissal. Two members voted for a five year suspension without pay, and one voted for a two year suspension without pay. Churchill's actual punishment was determined by the University Chancellor, who recommended to the Board of Regents that Churchill be dismissed. The Chancellor relieved Churchill of his duties on ] ] pending the outcome of this process,<ref>{{cite web | title=Panel recommends firing Colo. professor |work=AP (June 13, 2006) | url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_on_re_us/embattled_professor;_ylt=Au9JUVUTXN3mIBormsQ7NrBH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4dW1uZXIwBHNlYwMyNzQ3| accessdate=June 14 | accessyear=2006}}</ref> and is reviewing whether an investigation is warranted for additional recently presented charges.<ref>CU to Ernesto Vigil, 17 April 2006, http://www.khow.com/pages/img/cs-churchill%20copy.gif</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=CU reviewing new charges leveled against Churchill | work=Rocky Mountain News (May 11, 2006) | url=http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_4690063,00.html | author=Sara Burnett | accessdate=May 20 | accessyear=2006}}</ref> | |||
| ==Questioned ethnicity== | |||
| Churchill has made statements of having Indian ancestry.<ref>{{cite web | author=Craig Gima | title=Churchill attacks essay’s critics | work=Honolulu Star-Bulletin | url=http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/23/news/index2.html | date=2005-02-23}}</ref><ref>Steers, Stuart., ''Rocky Mountain News'', February 4, 2005.</ref><ref>Steers, Stuart., ''Rocky Mountain News'', February 4, 2005.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author=Ward Churchill | title=An American Holocaust? The Structure of Denial | journal=Socialism and Democracy | year=2002 | volume=19 | issue=3 | pages= | url=http://www.sdonline.org/33/ward_churchill.htm}}</ref> Many universities use membership in a recognized tribe as the legitimate marker of Indian identity for ] purposes.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/proof.html | author=Tom Brune | title=Can You Prove You're a Minority? | work=Seattle Times | date=1998-05-26}}</ref> Churchill's critics argue that his assertion of Native American ancestry without the ability to prove it might constitute misrepresentation and grounds for termination. The University stated in response that they do not hire on the basis of ethnicity, "Even if Mr. Churchill is not an American Indian, as he claims, Title VII protects Caucasians as well as persons of color. Further, it has always been university policy that a person's race or ethnicity is self-proving."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3554608,00.html | title=Red-flagged career: Churchill's tenure at CU marked by warnings of trouble | author=Charlie Brennan and Stuart Steers | work=Rocky Mountain News | date=2005-02-17}}</ref> | |||
| The University of Colorado's Research Misconduct Committee conducted a preliminary investigation into whether Churchill misrepresented his ethnicity in order to "make his scholarship more widely accepted." The Committee declined to pursue ethnic fraud charges against Churchill, as such issues are not covered in the official definition of "research misconduct." <ref>"CU-Boulder Chancellor Releases Report On Churchill Review," March 24, 2005, http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/129.html; "Report on Conclusion of Preliminary Review in the Matter of Professor Ward Churchill", March 24, 3005, http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/report.html; "Statement Regarding Decision Of Standing Committe On Research Misconduct", September 9, 2005, http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/standingcommittee.html</ref> | |||
| ==Allegations of copyright infringement== | |||
| Four authors have come forward to accuse Churchill of publishing their work without their permission.<ref name="X4392">http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/buffzone_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2448_3830231,00.html</ref> | |||
| ], a lawyer and member of the ], has accused Churchill of taking a class that Coulter taught on the status of American Indian nations and having published notes distributed in the class without written permission. Coulter has criticized not only Churchill's republication of the handout, but also Churchill's addition of his own endnotes. He said: ''I would never have permitted that—especially Ward Churchill. He's not a lawyer. He doesn't have the skill or expertise to add to a paper on my own subject.''<ref name="X4392"/> | |||
| ] Professor ] alleges that Churchill printed in his latest book on Indian boarding schools a photograph that Child had taken and previously published in her own book on the same topic".<ref>{{cite web| author=Berny Morson | title=Photo latest fuel in Churchill flap, Author says CU prof used picture of hers without permission | work=Rocky Mountain News (16 May 2006) | url=http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_4701982,00.html}}</ref> | |||
| The photo depicts the grave of an Indian child who had died while at school. Child complains that Churchill never requested or obtained her permission to use her photo. Furthermore, Child complains that Churchill's caption to her photo cites her while estimating that one half of Indian children died at boarding schools. Child characterizes Churchill's estimate as a "tremendous exaggeration". | |||
| There are allegations questioning the originality of some of Churchill’s artwork. In particular, "Winter Attack", a 1981 ] signed by Ward Churchill, may be a ] of a 1972 drawing "The Mystic Warriors of the Plains" by Thomas E. Mails.<ref name="X7980"></ref> Churchill has responded that "he whole issue is utterly contrived." He claims he spoke to Mails about adapting the imagery before using it, an adaptation which he said "here was nothing unusual about." <ref></ref> Ryan Mails, the son of the late Thomas Mails, said that he could not imagine that his father "would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces." <ref name="X7980"/> In a similar style, Churchill sold an ] of a ] photograph from 1877 by Charles M. Bell. The photograph of an ] Warrior is titled "Little Big Man". The online journal ] discusses the controversy surrounding Churchill's artwork, the questions regarding its originality, and the increased interest in sales of his work that has resulted. <ref></ref> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| * by ] writing for ]. | |||
| * (by John P. LaVelle) (PDF file). | |||
| * by Thomas Brown, published in . | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Churchill, Ward}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 01:47, 30 January 2016
Redirect to: