Scholarship and Academia

Today, I discovered a disappointing performance by the academic who chaired my thesis committee. (And working with this academic back in the day was a severely disappointing and disallusioning experience in itself, souring my taste for any more work in the "ivory tower.") Some things do not change, or more properly, some people never learn.

See: http://thedrunkablog.blogspot.com/2009/03/trial-highlights-for-children.html
or
http://www.theracetothebottom.org/ward-churchill/churchill-v-university-of-colorado-thursday-march-12-afterno.html

In my current profession, I get to hear about/observe academics who get pulled into cases as expert witnesses. Generally, they don't do well, at least not when our teams get done with them. Fact-checking seems to be a lost art in academia: the majority of reports we see (even some from fellow firms) have glaring errors, omissions, and generally get taken apart very quickly by anyone conversant with the primary documents. Granted, the universes of documents are huge, and take some little time to sort out and make sense of. But if you're an expert, this is your DUTY. And if you cannot substantiate your client's case, your DUTY requires you to present your evidence and report and work with the client, should the client want to involve you in further strategizing.

But that is the entire work of the expert witness-- to INFORM and BE ACCURATE. And above all, present tight, factual, and irreproachable testimony for the client.

I digress.

One would think that academics would be familiar with this procedure. After all, to be published in professional journals, aren't the articles reviewed by fellow scholars? Shouldn't even liberal arts academics be held to high standards of accuracy in their citations, primary documents, and other sources used to produce their work? And shouldn't the scrutiny of these works be held to the highest standards as well-- like the hard sciences?

I believe the answer to be a resounding YES. But the entire area of 'social sciences' seems to have lost this perspective. It is ideology that rules the roost. Instead of beginning with a hypothesis, gathering and analysing evidence surrounding the issue at hand, and writing up the results; academia is awash in poorly researched, ideology-driven work of a level of intellectual dishonesty that takes one breath away.

And what happens when one of the worst offenders is unmasked? Do the academics rally and say "yes, we need to adhere to strict standards and dismiss those who are not up to scratch!" Optimist No More has found that sadly, such honesty is sorely lacking, and more like completely absent.

Ward Churchill is, at best, a fraud. Mr. Churchill is, at worst, a charlatan imposter giving a black eye to social sciences in general and 'ethnic studies' programs in particular. Let's review some background information: Churchill does not possess a PhD. I have never heard of him possessing any higher education degree. None. Churchill is not an Indian. Enrolled, unenrolled, whatever-- he has NO Indian blood. He has a little card saying he's an honorary Keetowah Band member. Big deal, those are passed out freely to politicians, celebrities, etc. Only a fool would take that seriously. The Keetowahs are really sorry about that.

OK. This guy somehow gets appointed the HEAD of an academic department lacking: 1) actual academic credentials; and 2) is lying about his ethnicity as part of the fraud package that got him that position. His writings are actually some of the worst tripe ever presented as serious historical work. His citations are either secondary sources (many are misrepresentations of those works) or simply do not exist.

Here is a simple question to settle the teapot tempest: Wardie, where are your source documents? Show us PRIMARY source documents to substantiate your serious academic works.

Ideologues can, and do, write anything which falls into their imagined views. This is, to a large extent, what passes for academics in today's social sciences. Because that is all they are-- academics. NOT scholars. Scholars investigate, test, gather information and resources on the questions of their interest. When their initial ideas are not supported, they don't make up events or documents or use their imagination. Scholars go back, review evidence, and write up what they have found. Scholars do not lie about their creditials. Scholars welcome review of their work, and are ready to answer questions or take critical analysis.

Simple academics are not bound by scholarship, it seems. Academics don't have to admit they were wrong. Academics don't need to review others' professional backgrounds before casting aspersions.

Robert Williams-- FOR SHAME. In twenty years, have you really never learned to revise your positions when additional facts surface? In twenty years, have you not learned not to dump intellectually honest students and staff for taking a position which does not agree with yours? How can you honestly justify... oh, never mind.

I know there's no answer. Just rhetoric on my part.

I mean, really, come on. Even the AIM guys have jettisoned this (unprintable).