Wednesday the 18th, AM session: Distracting computer glitches & headstrong witnesses
Rachael Szucs | Wednesday, March 18, 2009 at 04:43PM This morning began with a continuation of O’Rourke’s cross-examination of Professor Yellowbird, which started Tuesday afternoon. A “connect the dots” analogy was used to describe inferences drawn (connections) from groups of facts (dots). While O’Rourke continually suggested that scholars can’t simply create their own facts, Dr. Yellowbird insisted that, yes, scholars can create “dots.” At the same time, however, Prof. Yellowbird did concede that falsification is wrong, and stated that facts aren’t to be invented. No doubt, his answers were confusing and there existed obvious flaws in his logic. Each answer seemed to circle back to an emotionally-charged “my peoples’ oral history” v “the white man’s history” claim, suggesting that the white man’s history is given far more credit than the oral history of indigenous peoples. Regardless, if this is true, I couldn’t help but think, “Isn’t this about inaccurately citing sources?” Prof. Yellowbird stated that, “Oral tradition supports almost everything [Churchill] has said.” If this is so, and if Churchill did not make up facts regarding smallpox, blankets, and scattering Indians, then perhaps he should have provided an accurate cite to where these facts were found, or else noted that his conclusion was an inference drawn from the cited source.
Prof. Yellowbird was also asked about answers he provided to the CU Privilege of Tenure Committee regarding oral traditions, smallpox, and the Three Affiliates Tribes. This morning, Prof. Yellowbird insisted that Churchill’s description of the smallpox epidemic among the Three Affiliates Tribes was accurate, per oral traditions of his peoples. In front of the Privilege of Tenure Committee, however, he was not so emphatic. At first, Prof. Yellowbird claimed that he did not give the Committee an affirmative response because they failed to ask him a pointed question. The meeting transcript nipped that excuse in the bud. So, what was the real reason? According to Prof. Yellowbird, it was a matter of being questioned “on-the-spot” by the committee, and not having enough time to reflect on all of the stories he had heard in his lifetime. I cannot say that I am convinced.
Despite any gaps in his story, I think that Prof. Yellowbird made some strong arguments with a great deal of emotional appeal… and he did a great job of directing these arguments toward the jury. Questions about academic misconduct were “answered” with statements regarding the unfair categorization of Native American oral history as mere storytelling among savages, when it should be considered a valid, significant source in academia. Comments such as these may very well sway a young, diverse jury, but these comments also disguise the real issue at hand: academic misconduct.
Professor Jose Limon, the Defendant’s witness, was next on the stand. Dr. Limon is a professor of English, Anthropology, and American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, as well as the Director of the Center for Mexican Studies. Prof. Limon was one of five members of an investigative committee looking into accusations of Churchill’s academic misconduct, and was chosen in part because of his experience as an ethnic studies professor, as well as his experience with oral traditions and oral history. Defendant’s counsel suggested that Prof. Limon was further qualified to be on the committee because of the parallels between Mexican American and American Indian studies, namely the use of oral tradition, songs, and crafts. While on the investigative committee, Prof. Limon examined specific examples of Churchill’s writing.
Prof. Limon voted for the dismissal of Churchill, and said that his misconduct was deliberate and serious (such an ambiguous term!). Defendant’s counsel pointed specifically to some of Churchill’s writing about the American Indian Arts and Crafts Act, and Churchill’s use of quotations in describing the Act. The words in quotations are not actually found in the Act, but Prof. Limon stated that a reasonable reader might assume the words could be found in the Act’s language, and that this was considered a fabrication. Who were the hypothetical “reasonable readers” that Prof. Limon was referring to? Other academics and college students. Prof. Limon did not suggest that the information itself was inaccurate, only that the use of quotations was misleading and the cite was incorrect when it misleads the reader to believe that the use of "blood quantum" is actually in the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990.
Limon ‘s testimony was solid, and he was not easily thrown off-track by Plaintiff’s counsel. He did seem caught up in the fact that Prof. Churchill did not openly acknowledge his mistake of citing fabrications as fact. I got the feeling that, had Churchill apologized for his actions and taken steps to correct citations and misstatements, Limon would not have voted for dismissal. This seems contradictory to his earlier statement that Churchill’s actions were serious, deliberate grounds for dismissal. Severe wrongdoing is not remedied by mere admission of guilt.
The cross-examination of Prof. Limon was fast moving, aside from a handful of computer glitches, and developed into a pretty heated exchange. Professor Limon admitted that he was not an expert in or a scholar of American Indian Law or American Indian Studies, and that Mexican American and American Indian histories are not exactly parallel, but he conceded no other points. Regardless of his level of expertise, Prof. Limon insisted that there is only one “truth” and that truth is not open to interpretation. While professors may reach different conclusions based on oral tradition or other sources, their findings are subject to peer review. Usually this review confirms a professor’s conclusion, or else points out obvious flaws. Professor Limon was quoted as saying that if a reasonable scholar comes to the same conclusion as a professor conducting research, then that conclusion is likely accurate and admissible as fact. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately pointed out that some academics believe that Ward Churchill’s writings are accurate.
Professor Limon’s response? “If such a scholar came here and said he disagrees with our findings and supports Professor Churchill’s work, this particular work we were examining, I would have a serious question about how reasonable that scholar is.” This answer caused quite the stir among observers in the courtroom.
It is not easy to say whether Churchill or CU won this morning’s battle, but it seemed to be that by noon, CU had taken the lead. Professor Limon was undoubtedly a strong witness: straightforward, blunt, and confident. Plaintiff’s counsel seemed flustered throughout the cross-examination, but it is difficult to determine whether the jury picked up on these cues. Unlike Professor Yellowbird, Limon did not tiptoe around giving direct answers. Professor Limon seems to view academic misconduct in black-and-white, and definitely not in-favor of Ward Churchill. By 5pm tonight, however, the score could very well change.
Reader Comments (2)
In response to the above comment:
At the root of this case is how knowledge is accumulated, and how knowledge is defined. "Legitimate" scholarship propagated by "legitimate" institutions has historically helped support the devastation of indigenous peoples and the natural world. As long as there is only ONE "legitimate" way of understanding the world (the Western/mechanistic way) atrocities will continue unabated. Among "legitimate" scholars,the disembodied voices of corporations are heard, but the spirits of our ancestors, or the spirits of the plants and animals we share the planet with, or even the contemporary voices of marginalized peoples are not worthy sources of information. Yet this BIAS masquerades as objectivity and scientific legitimacy.