Professor Churchill Essay

Tags: Printable Homework CalendarBusiness Plan For Call CenterIndira Gandhi Essay WritingDiscussion Questions For EssaysJoint Business PlanningDefine Critical Thinking SkillsEssay About FoodThesis Multimedia Box Size

Annette Jaimes, and that he did not recognize it as an essay he had used in another book the year before. Misrepresentation of the General Allotment Act of 1887: A CU investigative committee found that Churchill committed deliberate research misconduct when he repeatedly claimed that the federal law, used to assign land tracts to American Indians, required a “eugenics code” or a “blood quantum” — the idea that those eligible had to be “of at least one-half ‘blood.’ ” The law does not include that language.

In court, Churchill acknowledged that the language is not in the act but argued that it had that effect when it was carried out by the federal government and, therefore, that his interpretation was correct.

In court, Churchill said he wrote an initial article for a “movement newspaper” that was mistaken but that he followed up several years later with a “scholarly article” that was accurate.

“The major essay corrected all those problems,” Churchill testified.

A juror’s question, posed Tuesday after former professor Ward Churchill had been on the witness stand for more than seven hours, gave him the opening to argue — succinctly — that he was the victim of his controversial views, not his scholarship.

The question, read by Denver District Judge Larry J.

In court, Churchill argued that many of his conclusions about the smallpox epidemic near Fort Clark are “common knowledge” and that numerous sources support his assertions.

“We’ve had a process here where I can say nine things in a statement, and eight of them are supported by the source I cited, and the ninth one we have an issue,” Churchill said.

Patrick O’Rourke, a CU attorney, saw his questioning backfire at one point when he asked Churchill if he was really arguing that he didn’t recognize the Cohen essay when he had edited it once before, for another book, just months earlier. At one point, Naves suddenly called a recess after he saw that one of the jurors was having trouble staying awake.

O’Rourke had the title pages of both versions of the essay put up on a big screen in an attempt to show that they had the same title. At another point, however, O’Rourke challenged a different essay that Churchill claimed to have written, even though it was published under another name. Kevin Vaughan: 303-954-5019 or [email protected] of professor Fay Cohen: The committee found that Churchill was “at least an accomplice, if not a principal” in stealing an essay that Cohen wrote and publishing it under the byline of the Institute for Natural Progress, a group that Churchill co-founded.

SHOW COMMENTS

Comments Professor Churchill Essay

The Latest from new-history.ru ©