The acting chair of the University of Colorado ethnic studies department seems in some respects to be picking up where her predecessor, Ward Churchill, left off. In a slightly disjointed, poorly written essay for Counterpunch, a leftwing Web newsletter, Emma Perez suggests criticism of Churchill is a "neo-con test case for academic purges." In other words, Churchill is under siege from a vast rightwing conspiracy. . . .
Then there is this remarkable assertion: "The general strategy in forcing and then manipulating this 'investigation' of Ward's scholarship shares key tactics with the neo-con sinking of Emory historian Bellesiles in 2001 . . ." In fact, Michael Bellesiles resigned after a panel of scholars from places such as Harvard and Princeton concluded his failure to cite sources for material in his book, Arming America, "does move into the realm of 'falsification.'" Hardly a poster boy for the so-called new McCarthyism.
I believe that this is the article they're referencing. It appears that Churchill may sing more loudly, and off key, but that he's fundamentally part of the chorus.
UPDATE: A while back, some people were upset that I identified Ward Churchill with the current state of the Left. But the Left certainly seems to be identifying with Ward Churchill.
ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader emails:
The [DailyKos] 'diarist' Armando wrote about how you lied and tried to associate Ward Churchill with the left. His point? That the 'left' doesn't like what Ward Churchill said, they just support his right to say it. Instapundit is a liar for implying otherwise! Armando wished for comments to condemn your lies. But look what happened!! The comments turned into support for what Ward Churchill said.
Thought you might enjoy it.
Oh, I did. Especially the part where Armando sputters in the comments: "I resist this hijacking of my post. This is about Instapundit lying, not about defending Churchill. Write a diary on that if you want." Heh.
MORE: My goodness, the comments at Kos have gone crazy on this. But I think that those folks need to pick a storyline. Either (1) Churchill deserves to say what he wants without losing his job -- a defensible position, though with the inconvenient (for the Kossacks) twist that it's, well, mine (though "not losing his job" isn't the same as "not being savagely criticized for his tawdry and despicable sentiments") -- or (2) that Churchill was right, and that America had it coming for being the Evil Empire. But you can't simultaneously adopt position (2) while arguing that criticizing people for adopting position (2) is somehow a sham because nobody is actually depraved enough to believe position (2). At least, not without being an idiot.