History and Falsification Again
The Ward Churchill matter, as I’ve mentioned before, raises some interesting issues. One issue is that of free speech, which Norm and I along with Eve and, later, Jonathan, kept disagreeing about a few months ago. I still disagree with all of them – but I think the disagreements may have rested on various confusions among terms. The terms kept shifting, I think, back and forth between legal and moral, law and principle, without being nailed down often enough. Still…I think my point stands: there is no free speech right to falsify evidence. There is no free speech principle that protects Churchill’s right to falsify evidence. Falsification of evidence is not always a criminal offence (although it certainly can be), but that doesn’t make it a protected right, or a principle. It’s not usually something that people can or should be punished for (though there are plenty of exceptions), but it is something people can be prevented from doing. Academics who get fired for scholarly malfeasance are not being punished (though it is a punishment in fact), they are being prevented from doing their job the wrong way.
One key instance of “falsification and fabrication” was Churchill’s writing about the Mandan…In an essay titled “An American Holocaust?,” he wrote that the U.S. Army infected the Mandan with smallpox by giving them contaminated blankets in a deliberate effort to “eliminate” them. Churchill footnotes several sources as providing evidence for this claim, including UCLA anthropologist Russell Thornton’s book American Indian Holocaust and Survival. But Thornton’s book says the opposite: the Army did not intentionally give infected blankets to the Mandan. None of Churchill’s other sources provide support for his claim.
There is no free speech principle that protects that. It’s not a crime, but it’s also not protected. It’s neither.
Many of the comments are also very interesting. This one is particularly fascinating:
The committee peremptorily dismisses Churchill’s contention that his interpretation of the epidemic was influenced by the Native American oral tradition. This is treated as no more than an ex post facto defense against the allegation of misconduct. The committee also discounts Native American witnesses who support Churchill’s interpretations as well as his fidelity to oral accounts. The centrality of the oral tradition is evident in many of Churchill’s writings. His acknowledgments frequently include elders, Indian bands, and the American Indian Movement.
His fidelity to oral accounts – oh well then.
The terms and all became thoroughly confusing last time we discussed this (as you note). Am I then right in understanding that what you would mean by a right that isn’t a protected one is one to which one could advise “We can’t stop you doing it, but if there are consequences, you’re up for it”? As opposed to, say, a right one could claim one can’t be punished for exercising (or ought to have immunity for)? Is there such a thing?
>His fidelity to oral accounts – oh well then.< Ophelia, you’ll be doubting the reliability of “Chinese Whispers” next. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A782516
“that what you would mean by a right that isn’t a protected one is one to which one could advise “We can’t stop you doing it”
A right that isn’t a protected one is at least in some cases one that people can stop you doing. Your bosses, your peers, your purchasers, various regulatory agencies, etc. Usually telling lies is not a crime (though there are plenty of exceptions), but there can be non-crimes that people can stop you doing.
“As opposed to, say, a right one could claim one can’t be punished for exercising…?”
The distinction I’m making here is between a right that one can be prevented from exercising but not necessarily punished for exercising, as opposed to a broader one that one can’t or shouldn’t be prevented from exercising, let alone punished.
It all did become thoroughly confusing last time. I think it’s helpful to nail down exactly what kind of right one is talking about. That’s part of what I’m arguing here.
I mean…for one thing the Churchill case makes the distinction all by itself: there was an uproar about him and calls for him to be fired for the “little Eichmanns” comment, but that was protected free speech; it was a political opinion; it would have been difficult if not impossible to fire him for it and would have led to lawsuits if he had been fired. But crap scholarship is not protected in that way.
Allen, why are you murmuring ‘try these whiskers’ at me?
I don’t know, why does cheese fester?
Don’t we call “Fry These Crisps Up,” “Telephone” on the the west side of the pond?
I grew up (to the extent that I did at all) with it being called “Broken Telephone.” Or maybe “Smoking Gramophone.”
Really? In New Jersey we called it Smokin’ Yellastone. Just goes to show you, don’t it.