Ward Churchill is, of course, the University of Colorado professor who wrote an essay contending that the victims of the 9-11 attack were "little Eichmanns" who "got what they deserved." He has since "clarified" these remarks, stating that only some of the people who died in 9-11 deserved it, and that more terror attacks might be necessary to properly radicalize America. Here is an interview with the great man, if you want to see for yourself (and check out the picture).
Since coming to light, Professor Churchill has pretty much been exposed as a fraud. It now appears that his claim to be an Indian (which was likely significant in his hiring by UC) is entirely fabricated (just like his claims of Vietnam service). More significantly, real scholars have examined his writings, and it turns out that Churchill does his research the easy way, by just making stuff up:
Thomas Brown, a professor of sociology at Lamar University, has written a paper that outlines what looks like a more conventional form of academic fraud on Churchill's part. According to Brown, Churchill fabricated a story about the U.S. Army intentionally creating a smallpox epidemic among the Mandan tribe in 1837, by simply inventing almost all of the story's most crucial facts, and then attributing these "facts" to sources that say nothing of the kind.
Furthermore, as Mark Goldblatt at NRO points out, the people who publish Churchill's "scholarly writings" are themselves a bit off the beaten path. Here is the one of his publishers' mission statement:
AK Press is a worker run book publisher and distributor organized around anarchist principles. . . . Our goal is to make available radical books and other materials, titles that are published by independent presses, not the corporate giants, titles with which you can make a positive change in the world.
In other words, Churchill is a raving moon bat, a lightweight, and an academic fraud. So why are we writing about him? Goldblatt points out the real issue here, which is how this wacky conspiracy theorist, whose level of scholarship is on par with the people who hand out tract leaflets on street corners, managed to get a tenured position (and in fact was a department head) at a major public university:
[T]he fault here does not lie with Churchill; he's a symptom, not a disease. The fault lies, generally, with the sick academic culture in which he has thrived, and, specifically, with the administrative weasels at the University of Colorado who have repeatedly rewarded his dubious critical achievements.
As for Churchill himself, the only real appropriate response is to make fun of him, as only Iowahawk can.