Ethnic studies

Comment from Jim Paine

If one thing has become abundantly clear to me as I’ve delved deeper into Ward Churchill’s writings and the general field of Ethnic Studies, it is that Ethnic Studies is little more than an academic echo chamber dominated by a few loud voices, Churchill’s being among the loudest. Now, most fields of study are similarly repetitious, but what makes the Ethnic Studies echo chamber particularly troublesome is that many of the academics within the field are not academics at all, but rather, they are political activists with teaching jobs.

Why is this so? I won’t go into the emergence of professorial activism, since that subject has been covered thoroughly here. Suffice it to say that since the ‘60s, the Humanities in general and Ethnic Studies in particular (requiring as it does so little real scholarship) have attracted vast numbers of otherwise unemployable activists. The short hours, the long breaks, the ample salaries, and the endless opportunities to inculcate gullible students with one’s beliefs make this a near-perfect safe-house from which to conduct one’s real business of political activism.

Ward Churchill’s entire career has been both a mirror and a prototype of this merging of academia and activism. And now that career, as well as his body of work, has been called into question. Of course he will defend himself. But the real threat of the investigation of Churchill’s work is not merely to Churchill’s continued employment at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Most onlookers understand, at least on a visceral level, that this battle represents much more than that.

Most telling of the true scope of this battle is that Churchill’s academic peers are so vociferous, so strident in defending him. The simple fact of the matter is that they must defend him. Their own sinecures are threatened when Churchill is threatened. Much of their work would be eviscerated should the vast array of Churchill citations suddenly be rendered worthless. The work of Vine Deloria, of Bruce Johansen, of Winona LaDuke, of Robert A. Williams, Jr.-activists all, Churchill supporters all-the work of all of these is hopelessly intertwined and interdependent, each providing rationale for the others’ theses.

Churchill cites Deloria, who cites Johansen, who cites Williams, who cites Churchill. But what happens when just one of those sources is shown to be irrelevant, or worse, false? How much of what presently constitutes the field of Ethnic Studies will have to be reconstructed from the ground up? What happens when a single joker is removed from this house of cards?

Nothing of import, save perhaps the restoration of a subfield of study to its rightful parents, History and Anthropology departments. And, of course, a vast lamentation from activists suddenly deprived of audience, income, and succor.

Update:

Jim Paine has subsequently corrected and revised parts of this essay so refer back to the original for the latest version

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 07:52 PM in Education
Comments (5) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Svigor on November 15, 2005, 08:04 PM | #

and the endless opportunities to inculcate gullible students with one’s beliefs

A fellow at SF coined a great term for them: “intellectual pedophiles.”

Posted by TRI on November 15, 2005, 08:26 PM | #

Excellent post, JJR.

Posted by John Moredock on November 18, 2005, 08:34 AM | #

The only problem with the above is it’s based on a flat-out lie. We have a blog devoted, in part, to tracking some of the more absurd things Mr. Paine says, and this is one of the singularly dumbest. Points of falsehood as follows:

1. Deloria was never an ethnic studies professor; though he was a history professor. Meaning, he was, according to Paine, part of the solution, not the problem. That Paine didn’t manage to catch onto this makes us wonder if he’s even bothered to Google Mr. Deloria, let alone confront any of his books.

2.LaDuke’s not a professor anywhere. Never has been She doesn’t have any to tenure to protect. That Paine missed this makes us wonder that he predictably manages to contain his own saliva.

3. According to our readers, none of the scholars mentioned - Johansen, Williams, LaDuke and Deloria - have ever cited Churchill even once. There’s not only no evidence of any pattern of reciprocal citation among these folks, there’s not even a single occurrence. This doesn’t make us wonder at all; we’re under no misimpressions about Mr. Paine’s honesty.

Paine’s wholly aware of all of this, but has refused to modify his essay. We’ve emailed him multiple times asking for him to point to a single citation from Johansen, William, LaDuke and/or Deloria. He can’t. He’s a liar and a hypocrite.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 18, 2005, 12:15 PM | #

John,

How do you respond to the charge of the merging of academia and left political activism? This seems to me to be the meat of Paine’s accusation, regardless of any inaccuracies elsewhere.

The marxisation of Western education has still not, IMO, been adequately exposed. Are you for it and against free thought and free speech?

Posted by Jim Paine on November 18, 2005, 08:34 PM | #

I’ve addressed the question of the various citations in an update to “The Ethnic Studies Echo Chamber.”

http://www.pirateballerina.com/blog/entry.php?id=238

Next entry: Mainstream Massage

Previous entry: IQ is the Froggies’ problem

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa