I have written earlier that Ward Churchill may have committed academic fraud in claiming that he was an American Indian.
Now comes Dave Kopel, in his column in the Rocky Mountain News, who reports that in 1994 Judith Albino, then president of Colorado University, stated that
CU lawyers were investigating the charges that Churchill had obtained his Indian Studies job by making a false claim about his ethnicity: “From our end, we need to determine if the position was designated for a Native American. And I can’t answer that right now.” [Hat Tip to InstaPundit]
I’m not sure that committing the fraud of impersonating a Native American and as a result being hired for a university position that is “designated for a Native American” is really much worse than getting hired because you really are a Native American.
I say something similar here:
“I refuse to discuss the issue of Churchill’s racial purity — or lack thereof — except to state that anyone concerned about someone’s racial purity deserves to be lied to about it.”
It’s worse because one is a bad policy by itself, and the other is the same bad policy, plus a fraud.
That, and if he really were an American Indian, there might be some understanding for his hate whitey outlook. It still wouldn’t be justifiable, of course, but it would be understandable, sort of.
This happens often enough that it should have a name — one person adopting the identity of a suffering minority in order to excuse his own pathological hatred. Its as though Churchill (and others) want to claim the priviledges that come with being an outcast without actually suffering the role.
Remember The Big Libowski? One character (played by Goodman) talks incessantly about how his people has suffered for centuries, and then you find out he only converted to Judaism, and then only to please his Jewish wife. Now he is divorced, but he continues as a Jew because he doesn’t want to betray his people.
I’ve been wondering about this for a while. I think conservatives are tactically mistaken to attack Churchill’s apparent ethnic identity theft, because it requires implicitly accepting the notion that being Indian would qualify him (or at least make him more qualified) for the position.
Of course it speaks to Churchill’s personal honesty. But should lying about something that a government employer should not be Constitutionally allowed to consider really be actionable? If the U hired him because they thought he was Indian, they’re coming to this issue with unclean hands.