Breaking--Ward Churchill Denied Reinstatement

**Update 6--Ross Kaminsky provides an excellent detailed breakdown of Judge Larry Naves' decision in the Churchill lawsuit; more reactions on Churchill's failed lawsuit at Drunkablog, including a roundup of links; comprehensive followups at PirateBallerina (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), including CU billing Churchill for legal expenses; ACTA's take on the decision

**Update 5--CU Boulder Chancellor Phil DiStefano and CU attorney Pat O'Rourke:



**Update 4--The fat lady isn't singing--Churchill's attorney, David Lane, is planning to file an appeal:

When asked if there would be an appeal, Churchill's attorney David Lane said in an afternoon press conference, "Absolutely."

"It sends a message to the public, which is: 'Oh jury verdicts, who cares?' You know?" Lane said. "I've said, you know the Constitution is only as strong as those charged with protecting it, and unfortunately it's not being protected."

The next step is the Colorado Court of Appeals, and Churchill and Lane have 45 days to file the appeal.

CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke believes CU will win the appeal.

"[The ruling is] factually strong and it's legally strong. I think that this case could get resolved at the Court of Appeals level and the higher courts could say, 'We have no reason to review it further,'" O'Rourke said.

Churchill himself had nothing to say:

Churchill did not have any comment on Tuesday.

School administrators say the ruling gives them vindication.

"This is an issue about research misconduct. I said back in 2005 and again in 2006 that Professor Churchill's speech is protected. However, there were numerous allegations of research misconduct that needed to be investigated," CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano said.

"This is a huge win for the University of Colorado because the jury found against the university and the judge throwing the verdict out now can only be considered a major judicial upset," 9NEWS Legal Analyst Scott Robinson said.

But all sides agree that the case's journey through the courts is not over.

"This case will 100 percent be appealed and it's anyone's guess how it will be resolved in appeal," Robinson said. "This is a groundbreaking decision in an area of law that has not been visited very often in the past."

**Update 3--CU and Board of Regents granted immunity:

On Tuesday Chief Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves denied Churchill's motion for reinstatement of employment as well as any "front" pay. It was part of a decision where Naves granted CU and the Board of Regents immunity from being sued, which vacates the jury verdict from April of this year.
. . .
Naves ruled "because quasi-judicial immunity was a 'defense that would have been applicable to any of its officials or employees' it is a defense available to the University and the Board of Regents. In this case, it is clear that the Board of Regents performed a quasi-judicial function and acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when it heard Professor Churchill's case and terminated his employment."

"Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants are GRANTED quasi-judicial immunity as a matter of law from Professor Churchill's second claim for relief. As a result, the jury's verdict in this matter is hereby VACATED, and judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants on Professor Churchill's Second Claim for Relief."

Naves went on write: "If I granted reinstatement I believe there is a substantial likelihood that there would be future disputes about the propriety of Professor Churchill’s academic conduct... Under these circumstances and recognizing that the University’s faculty must have the ability to define the standards of scholarship, I am persuaded that reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy in this case... The same 'sharply conflicting evidence' about Professor Churchill’s job performance and the fundamental disagreements between the parties lead me to conclude that 'an absence of mutual trust' makes reinstatement unfeasible."

**Update 2--CU President Bruce Benson:

"We believe the judge appropriately applied the law to recognize the Board of Regents' role as a quasi-judicial body. This ruling recognizes that the regents have to make important and difficult decisions. The threat of litigation should not be used to influence those decisions."

From the ruling:

In a 42-page decision issued today, Naves agreed with the university that Churchill's presence on the Boulder campus would suggest that the university tolerated academic misconduct.

"The evidence was credible that Professor Churchill will not only be the most visible member of the Department of Ethnic Studies if reinstated, but that reinstatement will create the perception in the broader academic community that the Department of Ethnic Studies tolerates research misconduct," Naves wrote.

"In addition, this negative perception has great potential to hinder students graduating from the Department of Ethnic Studies in their efforts to obtain placement in graduate programs," he wrote.

**Update--full text of Judge Naves' ruling (pdf), and a mini-recap of the arguments presented after Churchill's April "victory," in which he was awarded damages of $1:

In April, a Denver jury agreed with Churchill's premise that he was illegally fired, but it stopped far short of awarding Churchill a high dollar figure. Instead it awarded Churchill $1.

Last week, Lane and Churchill were back in Judge Naves' courtroom arguing that their legal victory in April was enough for the judge to order reinstatement. Calling CU leaders, "constitutional law violators," Lane told Naves he had essentially no other choice but to reinstate the embattled professor.

CU's lead attorney Patrick O'Rourke argued that the $1 judgement in April should, in essence, speak for itself. O'Rourke suggested that reinstating Churchill would further damage the university's reputation.

--extensive SP Churchill archives

--more at PirateBallerina

Perhaps the final chapter in the Ward Churchill saga:

The University of Colorado doesn't have to give fired ethnic studies Prof. Ward Churchill his job back, a Denver District Court judge ruled today.

"I conclude that reinstating Professor Churchill would entangle the judiciary excessively in matters that are more appropriate for academic professionals. In making this decision, I give considerable weight to the United States Supreme Court's recognition that 'considerations of profound importance counsel restrained judicial review of the substance of academic decisions,' " Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves, said in his 42-page decision.

Naves went on to say that trial courts may deny reinstatement when, as " practical matter, a productive and amicable working relationship would be impossible" or "the employer-employee relationship has been irreparably damaged by animosity caused by the lawsuit."

A jury in April found that the university illegally fired Churchill after he was accused of research misconduct.

More from Channel 7:

Boulder learning will go on without Ward Churchill.

On Tuesday Judge Larry Naves granted CU's and the Board of Regent's motion for judgement as a matter of law that the Board of Regents is immune from being sued and vacates the jury verdict from April of this year.

Naves also denied Churchill's motion for reinstatement of employment as well as any "front" pay.

Jury Leaning Toward Churchill?

Developing . . . verdict reached:

The jury has reached a verdict in the case of Ward Churchill vs. University of Colorado. It is expected to be delivered shortly after 4 p.m.

---

Things may not be looking good for CU--and academic honesty:

A question submitted this afternoon from the jury indicates that it is leaning toward granting Ward Churchill's civil claim against the University of Colorado.

But the six jurors also appear to be struggling with what to award the former ethnic studies professor in damages, if anything.

Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves read the question in the courtroom this afternoon.

"We are feeling uncomfortable about the damages portion. Would you be willing to meet with us to talk about what is required and other things regarding money," Naves said. "And is zero dollars an option?"

Naves read his reply to the jury.

"I cannot meet with you. Please re-read the instructions regarding damages and if you find in favor of the plaintiff but do not find damages, you will award in the sum of one dollar," he said.

Churchill attorney Robert Bruce said "it's one of those juror questions that seems to be leaning in our direction."

Drunkablog corroborates and is transcribing CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke's appearance on Caplis and Silverman and PirateBallerina has more.

Ward Churchill Week 4 Update--Judge Tosses One Of Two Claims, **Update: Jury Receives Case

"Are you going to allow lies to overcome the truth?"--David Lane, Churchill's attorney

"What we heard here during the course of this trial is there are two worlds - the world the University exists in and the world Ward Churchill lives in . . . Ward Churchill's world was a place where there are no standards and no accountability"--Patrick O'Rourke, CU attorney

**Update 2: Jury receives case:

A jury began its deliberations in Ward Churchill's civil trial against the University of Colorado on Wednesday after hearing the closing arguments from both sides.

"The job you are now undertaking is quite possibly the most important decision you will ever have to make," Churchill's attorney David Lane told the Denver jury during closing arguments. "You are in charge of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America."

Lane added: "Are you going to allow lies to overcome the truth?"
. . .
CU's attorney countered during his round of closing arguments.

"What we heard here during the course of this trial is there are two worlds - the world the University exists in and the world Ward Churchill lives in," attorney Patrick O'Rourke said. "Ward Churchill's world was a place where there are no standards and no accountability."

Exit questions--how quick a decision, and in whose favor?

---

Scroll for updates--as always, check out the implacable Drunkablog, who managed to cover the majority of the trial from inside the courtroom, and PirateBallerina for additional coverage . . .

**Late breaking update: No chilling of free speech--judge tosses one of Churchill's claims!:

Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves threw out one of Ward Churchill's two claims this afternoon, ruling that the former professor's assertion that the University of Colorado launched an investigation into his scholarship in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights was not "actionable."

The judge and lawyers met out of the presence of the jury Tuesday afternoon to go over the final language on the jury verdict form.

"This case will go to the jury on the other claim where there is clearly an adverse employment action, which is being terminated," the judge said.

The second claim in Churchill's civil lawsuit against the school is the primary claim -- that CU fired Churchill for exercising his free speech rights.

The first claim in his suit, which was dismissed this afternoon, was that CU launched an investigation into the former professor in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, essentially chilling those rights.

Naves said an investigation, in and of itself, is not an adverse employment action.

Churchill didn't lose his job or his pay while the investigation was ongoing, the judge said, and the possibility that an investigation could chill free expression by others who fear that making a controversial statement will result in a whole sale investigation of their scholarship is not sufficient to bring a retaliation claim.

Naves cited several other cases where judges had made similar rulings.

The jury will receive instructions Wednesday morning. Closing arguments will follow.

---

"Where do you guys get off looking at every word he has ever written when the only thing he wrote that upset you was the 9/11 essay?"--Churchill's attorney David Lane


Excellent cartoon from Face the State.

The latest updates on the Churchillpalooza trial--including extensive previous coverage:

Churchill receives the support of terrorist-sympathizer Lynne Stewart.

March 31--Defense concludes:

Ludwig took the stand for a short period Tuesday afternoon, testifying that he felt Ward Churchill was a valuable presence on campus because he served to combat the "cultural amnesia" that the larger society has about the treatment of American Indians.

He said it was "not easy" to fire the professor but that his academic transgressions were serious enough to merit it.

"We can't have one of our faculty members fall below that standard that we have," he told the jury.

March 30--Regents admit Churchill essay sparked probe:

Three former and current University of Colorado regents testified today that they authorized a review of then-Boulder professor Ward Churchill's speeches and writings only to find out whether they were protected under the First Amendment.

Former regent Patricia Hayes and regent Peter Steinhauer, both Republicans, said they found Churchill's comments in an essay about the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, "anti-American." But they said they also were concerned about other instances where Churchill made speeches that they thought appeared to advocate violence and terrorism.

They testified that they wanted to know whether the speeches and essays were considered protected speech under the First Amendment if Churchill had made them as a public employee representing the university.

"Given a fair chance":

Carlisle was the lone regent to vote against firing Churchill in 2007.

She said her decision to stray from her colleagues was based on the fact that the majority of faculty members serving on CU's Privilege & Tenure Committee voted to suspend the professor.

"They're the ones with the scholarship, they were the ones who should be making the decision about what sanctions should happen to Professor Churchill," she testified.

But Carlisle said she had the utmost confidence that Churchill was treated fairly and that the academic misconduct charges against him were fully proven.

"I believe Ward Churchill was given a fair chance to state his case," she told the jury.

March 27--"We did not sacrifice Ward Churchill":

"We did not sacrifice Ward Churchill," said Don Morley, a professor of communications at CU-Colorado Springs and a member of the university's Privilege and Tenure Committee.

Morley testified that he was hoping the fraud charges against Churchill that were being forwarded to his panel from the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct would turn out to be false.

"Why?" CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke asked.

"You just don't want to see one of your own fall and he's one of our own," Morley replied.

He said the Privilege and Tenure Committee was not a rubber stamp for the previous university panels that reviewed Churchill's work for academic misconduct.

His committee gave serious consideration to each allegation of fraud, Morley told the jury, and even absolved Churchill on several when the alleged wrongdoing didn't rise to the committee's higher standard of "clear and convincing" evidence for misconduct.

But what the committee did find in terms of misconduct, Morley said, merited terminating the controversial former ethnic studies professor.

March 26--Free speech doesn't negate academic fraud:

CU Regent Michael Carrigan told the jury that the nationwide furor over an incendiary essay penned by Churchill about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was a wholly different matter from allegations that the professor had fabricated, falsified and plagiarized parts of his academic work.

And just because the misconduct investigation grew out of the firestorm over the essay — which CU later determined to be protected free speech — didn’t mean the university could disregard the information it was getting about Churchill’s scholarship, Carrigan testified.

“Essentially, if we ignored these allegations, the message would be that you can plagiarize, you can ghostwrite, you can do it, but just make sure you say something offensive so you can say you should never be investigated and your work should never be scrutinized,” he said.

March 25--Churchill's attorney rests case

March 24--Churchill calls critics "pathetic":

Ward Churchill, fired by the University of Colorado two years ago for allegedly engaging in academic misconduct, called some of his critics "pathetic" during a second day of testimony at his wrongful termination trial Tuesday.

The frank description came after Churchill's attorney, David Lane, asked his client for his reaction to previous testimony from a colleague at CU who, according to Lane, characterized Churchill's three decades of scholarship as "not worth a pitcher of warm spit."

"How did it make you feel?" Lane asked.

"Angry," Churchill replied. "But anger is no new feeling for me."

Boo hoo. Critics also labelled "shit-knitters"--that's a new one.

Ward Churchill Testifies (Finally): "I Am Not In Favor Of Terror," Profit Motive Made 9/11 Victims "Little Eichmanns"

Today's earlier Week 2 recap. Drunkablog contextualizes Churchill's contextualizations on the stand earlier today. PirateBallerina has even more.

From the Denver Post Churchill blog:

Churchill is putting the meaning of his 9/11 essay in context for the jury. "I am not in favor of terror," he said.
. . .
"If the country wanted to avoid a repeat performance, maybe they should stop doing what it was that prompted the attack in the first place."

Churchill said people did not understand that Eichmann was a "bureaucrat, a desk murderer" and his mistake was assuming people understood Eichmann's role when they read the essay.

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit for yourself and your clients, you are the moral equivelant of Adolf Eichmann," Churchill said. "He never killed anyone, but without him the killing would have taken a very different or inefficient form."

Churchill continues to perpetuate a conflation of staggering malevolence--that somehow those working in the Twin Towers on 9/11, those corporate types involved in free market capitalism, are the moral equivalent of a man who organized train schedules and facilitated the murder of millions of Jews. But he's not in favor of terror, so he has that going for him.

Maybe he can't help it--he was just a "copy editor, essentially" for one of his cases of academic misconduct.

Russell Means--Churchill just "writing the wrongs of history" or "righting the wrongs"--depending on the blogger:

"It's an insult to my people and my history," Means said. "It's a scholarly massacre and it's not right. It's full of holes and full of lies. It's unconscionsable, because they don't treat white professors at CU the same way."

Yes they would, if any of them acted as academically irresponsible as Churchill. There is "scholarly massacre" at stake here, the kind perpetrated by Churchill in pursuit of a purely political agenda.

Where's Ward Churchillpalooza Week 3: Week 2 Recap, Will He Finally Take The Stand?

"Simply made-up, simply false . . . He just cheated"--University of Colorado sociology professor Michael Radelet, investigative committee member, on one of Ward Churchill's many faulty historical claims

Week 1 Recap--Churchill is expected to take the stand today, barring any more delays or snafus

March 16--Churchill's 9/11 essay "cruel and gratuitous", more here from the Daily Camera blog

March 17--Michael Yellow Bird on inventions in "oral history"; academic debates surrounding Churchill's questionable claims should "remain in the Academy and not in the courts"

March 18--MYB continued . . . "They don't invent facts, they invent the possibility that these things happen":

For the final question CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke asked indigenous studies professor Michael Yellow Bird during his re-cross Wednesday morning, he pulled up a transcript of previous testimony the professor had given to CU's Privilege & Tenure Committee and asked him if he had made the statement that "fabricated, made-up accounts promote the truth."

With a slight pause, Yellow Bird said yes.

"No further questions," O'Rourke said, closing his binder and taking a seat.

Lynne Stewart, yes that Lynne Stewart, will be defending Churchill this week.

CU investigative committee prof: Not "part of a right-wing attempt to get professor Churchill," problems with sourcing

March 19--technical snafu's deplete Churchill's crowd of supporters; CU's lead attorney goes on the offensive

March 20--Why the Churchill case matters from Vince Carroll of the Post; Churchill "hiding behind" oral tradition

March 23--Churchill lawyer claims that the powers that be at CU "disrespect Native people"; "He just cheated":

University of Colorado sociology professor Michael Radelet, who served on the investigative committee looking into allegations of academic misconduct by Ward Churchill, said his initial concern was that his colleague was being "railroaded" by people who wanted to see him punished for writing a controversial essay.

Radelet said he even signed on to a statement drawn up by his colleagues calling for Churchill's academic freedom and First Amendment rights to be protected by the university during the days after the 9/11 essay came to light.

"I am not and was not a person they would pick if they wanted someone to frame, railroad or even convict Ward Churchill of research misconduct," Radelet told the jury.

He testified that the committee, sensitive to the concept of academic freedom, "bent over backwards" to give Churchill the benefit of the doubt.

Radelet, who looked into allegations that Churchill had falsified information through his contention that there was "pretty strong circumstantial evidence" that Captain John Smith purposely introduced smallpox to the Wampanoag Indians in Massachusetts, said the claim was "simply made-up, simply false."

"He just cheated," he told the jury.

Drunkablog has Radelet's assertions that, by Churchill's standards, just about anyone in Boulder in 1996 could be a suspect in the JonBenet Ramsey murder.

Much more from the aforementioned Drunkablog, who has braved the trial's tedium and icy glares from the Chutchites for two weeks already, and PirateBallerina, who continues to serve up links galore to Churchilliana.

The Daily Camera's blog/story archives are here, and the Race to the Bottom blog offering legal insights into the trial continues to chronicle the Churchill legal saga.

Churchill Trialpalooza Week 1 Recap, Week 2 Preview

The Drunkablog continues his extensive virtual liveblog coverage of the Ward Churchill lawsuit:

Tuesday March 10--"Ordeal by trial"

Wednesday March 11--Vince Carroll's pessimism on the Churchill lawsuit; ex-CU President Betsy "C-word is a term of endearment" Hoffman deposed on video, speaking on then-Gov. Bill Owens' "plan" for Churchill

Thursday March 12--pro-Churchill testimonials from CU faculty, former students; former CU President Hank Brown's testimony

Friday March 13--Churchill's lawyer David Lane's call for "mistrial" rebuffed

Monday March 16--Prof. Marianne "Mimi" Wesson, chair of investigative committee on academic misconduct, accused of bias

The Boulder Daily Camera continues to liveblog as well, and the usual expansive links at PirateBallerina.

Bonus--"Ward Churchill was the hazardous waste dumped in the reservoir"

Churchill, Holocaust deniers--what's the difference?

Could Churchill sycophant Glenn Spagnuolo's own case put a nail in his idol's coffin?

Churchill lawsuit--insubstantial MSM coverage but still substantial interest?

Churchill Trialpalooza Opening Arguments: Churchill's Attorney--"Mob Mentality" Against Client, Churchill "Never Plagiarized"

"The media was out of control -- it was an absolute mob mentality"--Ward Churchill's attorney David Lane, in opening arguments

"Churchill lost his job because he breached the trust of being a university professor. Professor Churchill did things that an eighth grader knows is wrong"--CU defense attorney Patrick O'Rourke

From the Daily Camera--Ward's legal counsel David Lane trots out the Churchill-as-martyr trope:

David Lane, Ward Churchill's attorney, invoked the names of Italian astronomer Galileo, who heretically declared that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and Tenessee teacher John Scopes, who was condemned for teaching evolution in school, as direct comparisons to what his client has undergone in the wake of writing a controversial essay on 9/11.

"Fast forward to 2005... Boulder, Colorado," Lane said during opening statements Tuesday morning.

Lane then moves on accuse CU Boulder of conducting a essentially a "lie-finding" mission using "pet poodles" selected to oust the professor:

Once Churchill's essay became widely public in January 2005, he told the jury, the media wouldn't let it drop.

"The media was out of control -- it was an absolute mob mentality," Lane said.

He said former Gov. Bill Owens threatened to cut funding to CU if it didn't fire Churchill. National media figures also jumped on the anti-Churchill bandwagon, he said.

Lane said all of that pressure prompted CU to find any way it could to get rid of the ethnic studies professor. It didn't stand up for him and defend his free expression rights, Lane said.

"They ran like cowards and they sacrificed this man because they were afraid of the howling mob," he said. "Lacking in courage, CU hung him out to dry."

Lane said the school undertook a full fledged effort to find anything it could in the dozens of books Churchill had written or edited that would justify terminating him. The school picked its own "pet poodles" to head up its committee to look into his client's work, he said, like CU law professor Mimi Wesson. Lane said Wesson, who made disparaging comments about the former professor, was in charge of the Standing Committee for Research Misconduct.

But Lane's biggest challenge, aside from trying to prove that his client was wrongfully terminated due to bias inherent in the system, is his own goal of disproving that Churchill in fact plagiarized or was responsible for any academic misconduct:

He said he would prove to the jury that Churchill never plagiarized and never falsified his work, as the school asserts.

"I think you will see that this guy has devoted his life to telling the truth for people who are not given a voice in society," Lane said, referring to Churchill's long-time affiliation with Native American communities.

He asked the jury to make his client whole again.

Yeah, good luck with that.

CU's attorney Patrick O'Rourke defended the university's actions, declared Churchill's essay "protected speech," but that he committed the "worst kind of academic fraud" possible, and compared his ability to discern appropriate academic behavior to that of a 13-yr-old:

However, he said, when the school began receiving allegations of academic misconduct attributed to the professor, it investigated his writings and found eight instances of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. A committee of 20 tenured professors made the determination, he said.

O'Rourke said Churchill's attempts to defend his work on various occasions over the past two years came up short in the eyes of his professorial peers, who held out the possibility that Churchill may have simply made honest errors. They characterized his misconduct as severe, deliberate and damaging.

"They said this is wrong," O'Rourke said. "Churchill lost his job because he breached the trust of being a university professor. Professor Churchill did things that an eighth grader knows is wrong."

More to come this afternoon.

More on the ex-professor in SP's extensive Ward Churchill archives.

More at Drunkablog and PirateBallerina.

Perhaps the 15 minutes are over--altry attendance and lack on national press coverage.

The Denver Channel 7 has a Twitter-style liveblog going as well, and has the testimony from the first witness for the plaintiff:

Professor Evelyn Wu-Dehard [Hu-DeHart, ed.] is called to the stand.

She is a professor of history and ethnic studies at Brown University, formerly at CU.

Says ethnic studies emerged from the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s. Says the contributions of blacks, Hispanics and Asians had been ignored for years. The notion of citizenship was reserved for white people.

"When CU tried to recruit me … Ward Churchill was already here."

Her opionion: Ward Churchill is one of the leading Native American scholars. One whose scholarship crosses a wide range. His impact is perhaps the single largest of all in ethnic studies.

"I think the worst thing that can happen to a scholar is when no one cares about you. When you provoke others. That is the highest testament to scholars."

She had written that Ward Churchill was not your typical academic.

He was in academic services. He had already be publishing and writing as a scholar. He did not have the usual criteria. Absence of Phd., which says you have an analytical mind. He was able to convince CU to hire him because of his published works.

She said he was an activist... an applied scholar. He takes information and applies it to areas of social import.

Break for lunch, resume at 1:30pm.

Churchill Trialpalooza Roundup

**Update--More from Drunkablog--jury selection completed:

A jury of four men and four women -- including two alternates -- has been seated in Ward Churchill's wrongful termination trial against the University of Colorado.

Denver District Judge Larry Naves gave a set of admonishments to the jury, telling them not to read about the case in newspapers or on the Internet or to watch anything about it on television.

Opening statements are scheduled to be made Tuesday at 9 a.m.

The lawyers in the case took an hour vetting the prospective jury as a group Monday afternoon, asking questions about the role of the First Amendment and about the kind of questions a public university has the right to ask when an employee is making controversial statements.

They also asked the jurors if they thought they could be fair in the case.

Lawyers had already met individually with each potential juror in the morning.

Bonus video from last week's Ward rally at CU, with moonbats issuing support from the "free speech" cage.

---

Drunkablog made the rounds this morning in Civic Center park ("Save Ward!" rally) and the Denver City and County building for the jury selection, but not much was going on . . . yet.

Looking at the Left has more reflections on the Churchill kerfuffle, and kook-aid guzzling Ben Whitmer soldiers on in his support of his idol mentor.

Churchill's lawyer, David Lane, parrots the continued charge of a CU "witch hunt" borrowed from William "free as a bird" Ayers:

"He is looking forward to having his day in court finally in a public forum so the public can hear what this witch hunt was all about," Lane said.

The trial is being held in the courtroom of Denver Chief District Judge Larry J. Naves.

Prospective jurors began receiving questionnaires about their knowledge of Churchill and the facts of the case last week.

The jury will be asked to consider two claims: that the university retaliated against Chur chill first by launching an investigation into his academic record and then by firing him. Churchill, 61, is seeking reinstatement and a financial judgment.

"In firing Mr. Churchill, CU did the right thing in the right way for the right reasons," said Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for the CU system. "Essentially, I think that Churchill has had a trial by a jury of his peers and now he wants a do-over, and so we hope the jury sees things the way we do."

Churchill was roundly criticized in the court of public opinion, justifiably terminated by due process of his academic peers, and now has his day in court.

Some see no resolution in sight, and the decision in this lawsuit as anything but the final word in the Churchill/CU saga.

Stay tuned for more "As the Ward Turns"--as the lawsuit's first full day will commence tomorrow with opening arguments scheduled for 8:30 am Tuesday.

Ivory Tower Of Hope--University Of Colorado Donates 21-1 For Barack Obama

Chronicling bias in the rarefied air of academia qualifies as a "dog bites man" type of story--we know the outcome, but the delight (or horror) is often found in the details.

CU Boulder has earned its reputation as a bastion of academic liberalism and extremism. Ward Churchill, anyone?

This year's election provided an opportunity to reexamine that bias via fundraising reports that would reveal, more than simple party registration or classroom indoctrination, how America's places of higher learning were treating the epic battle between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain in dollars and cents.

You guessed it--they really, really like Obama.

Using this donor list tool, you can search by candidate, name, employer, state, and zip code. We decided to see just how much "hope" there was for Obama versus McCain, and the results were a complete shock.

Not really.

The University of Colorado system saw its employees donate 21-1 for Obama. A quick check of two other schools--University of California (including Berkeley) and Harvard University--immediately reveals that CU is actually low in terms of per-candidate ratios.

University of Colorado: Obama--$112,386; McCain--$5,401

University of California: Obama--$355,242 (donations above $1,000 only); McCain--$17,620

Harvard University: Obama--$499,057; McCain--$17,046

Obama--the change he needs, courtesy (in part) of America's ivory towers of privilege.

How does your alma mater fare? Or your zip code?

Anti-Palin Instructor Andrew Hallam Cleared By Metro State

**Update--Hallam needs "mentoring":

"The investigation concluded that Hallam must learn to curb the use of vulgar language in class, and that the introduction of controversal topics must have a substantial relationship with the subject of the class," according to a news bulletin released by the college Tuesday.

"While discipline is not warranted, appropriate mentoring is recommended."

The findings of the investigation was announced by Metro State College president Stephen Jordan on Tuesday.

Hallam, 36, will be assigned a faculty member to serve as his mentor for the rest of this semester, according to Cathy Lucas, spokeswoman for the college. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Lucas said the college will also add an all-day session on how to maintain political balance in classes to orientations given to part-time as well as tenure track faculty members.

Wow. More diversity training at a college/university.

Didn't see that one coming.

---

Not even a slap on the wrist or a strongly worded letter.

Shock--Metro State found no wrongdoing:

A college English instructor's assignment to write an essay on whether Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is living a fairy tale has been cleared of wrongdoing.

Metropolitan State College of Denver probed the assignment by Andrew Hallam after some students complained it was politically biased.

Hallam's class was reading "Sleeping Beauty" and the assignment was to consider Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention. The speech was based on Palin's life and the assignment was to discuss whether the nominee is living a fairy tale.

An internal investigation found the assignment didn't require students to undermine Palin. The inquiry concluded students didn't feel personally belittled or insulted by Hallam.

Oh really?

Matt Barber told WND his sister is one of five students who have been belittled by the teacher, and "bullied and harassed" by other students "because they support McCain-Palin."

The students had documented a series of incidents in which Hallam reportedly told his class, "Bush-bashing is one of my favorite things to do."

In another class, the students report, Hallam said he loved swearing and the f-word was his favorite word.

"He used the f-word a few more times that day," they reported.

When Hallam handed out the Palin writing assignment, the students reported "he said he would give the Republicans a chance to speak about it and asked who in the class was a Republican. Five of us raised our hands. When we did, [one other student] … said 'F*** you!' Mr. Hallam did nothing about this. At the end of the class period, after a lot of the Republicans had voiced their side of the issue, another kid said, 'They're full of s***, but we let them talk anyway.'"

Not even enough backbone to criticize or punish an instructor whose political derangement created an undoubtedly hostile atmosphere to those who disagreed with his views. Since those students who complained obviously held the wrong point of view, nothing could or would be done by Metro State.

I hear there is still an opening for deranged, leftist, academic hacks--perhaps Mr. Hallam should contact the CU Ethnic Studies department once his Metro State appointment has run out.

Michelle Obama At CU--Professors Cancel Classes For Visit

**Update--lackluster turnout for the wife of "The One," at 11:40am MDT:

All of those who were in line are now on the fileld, which is only about a quarter filled.

With an estimated crowd capacity of 7000 for Farrand Field, this would be a turnout of less than 2000 on a campus bursting with lefties. Look for the numbers to grow (through crowd inflated estimates) later in the day.

Perhaps they should have offered that other enticement so popular at CU.

The Rocky is blogging from Farrand Field on the CU Boulder campus--where we learn that classes have been cancelled so that students can attend a rally with Barack Obama's wife Michelle, and not the candidate himself:

The lines are flowing relatively quickly into Farrand Field, which can hold about 7,000 people. Attendees are going through minimal security checks, with no metal detcetors. Officials are mostly just visually scanning people.

One of those who just entered was Christina Donahue, 19, an English major, who said her professor canceled class so students could attend the rally.

"It's important to be out and politically active and vote," Donahue said. "This will be an important part of history."

Since she is 19, this will be the first time she can vote.

"A lot of people are really interested," Donahue said. "They want to be part of it and contribute."

She, along with the thousands of others expected to attend, are filling out information cards for the Obama campaign.

On a liberal campus like Boulder perhaps it would be unsurprising to find that classes would be canceled for the Democratic nominee (his wife is another matter) reflecting, no doubt, the political leanings of the professors. The students don't seem to be showing up quite yet (10 am MDT):

Perhaps they're sleeping in or sitting in class, because the crowd so far is distinctly lacking in CU students -- the Obama campaign's target audience.

Whoops! Looks like the misguided students need a little encouragement.

But biased professors and instructors? Well, well, well:

Duke Austin, a 33-year-old graduate student and instructor in CU’s Sociology Department, was out near the lines to get in with a sign that said, “No bailout for the rich” on one side and “Don’t surge Afghanistan” on the other.

Austin describes himself as a “critical Obama supporter.”

“I think the movement surrounding Obama is more progressive than Obama himself. If the movement wants to influence change in Obama, it has to do it before the election,” he said.

Austin was among the organizers of protests during the Democratic National Convention and is part of the group Students for Peace and Justice.

Just another day in academia in the People's Republic of Boulder.

BDS-Suffering Metro State Instructor Andrew Hallam Assigns Essay Criticising Sarah Palin

**Update 2--shocker: Metro State instructor staying silent

**Update--Metro students discuss the Palin-basing assignment with talk radio show host Mike Rosen

"Bush-bashing is one of my favorite things to do"--Metro State instructor Andrew Hallam

2000-2008: Bush Derangement Syndrome.
August 2008-?: Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Another lefty professor from the Ward Churchill school of biased teaching has earned the coveted media attention desired by so many on the left in their quest for self-promotion and "raising awareness" of their political philosophies (video):

Metro State College is investigating a professor who asked students to write an essay critical of Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin. One student said the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them.

"I was shocked, I was holy cow, this is just an open door for him to discuss politics with us," said Jana Barber, a student in the class.

Barber shared the first class assignment with CBS4. Instructor Andrew Hallam asked students to write an essay to contradict what he called the 'fairy tale image of Palin' presented at the Republican National Convention.

"What the faculty's responsibility is to provide opportunity for critical thinking and civic engagement so bringing something of relevancy into the classroom was the faculty's goal," said Cathy Lucas, spokeswoman for Metro State. "Should he have broadened it and included all the political figures, yes."

Metro State officials are investigating claims of bias, harassment and bullying.

Hallam declined an interview with CBS4. He has revised the assignment.

Students may now write about any of the candidates.

The Daily Blogster has the earlier known details of the story, that detail the explicit bias of the class atmosphere promoted by the instructor, including the implicit approval of harassment of self-identified conservative/Republican students in the class by their fellow students:

Matt Barber told WND his sister is one of five students who have been belittled by the teacher, and "bullied and harassed" by other students "because they support McCain-Palin."

The students had documented a series of incidents in which Hallam reportedly told his class, "Bush-bashing is one of my favorite things to do."

In another class, the students report, Hallam said he loved swearing and the f-word was his favorite word.

"He used the f-word a few more times that day," they reported.

When Hallam handed out the Palin writing assignment, the students reported "he said he would give the Republicans a chance to speak about it and asked who in the class was a Republican. Five of us raised our hands. When we did, [one other student] … said 'F*** you!' Mr. Hallam did nothing about this. At the end of the class period, after a lot of the Republicans had voiced their side of the issue, another kid said, 'They're full of s***, but we let them talk anyway.'"

The students are in the process of filing the necessary complaints.

Drunkablog makes the necessary and inevitable comparison to another local teacher with a bias problem--Jay Bennish.

CU To Rethink One Year Salary For Dismissed Professors Like Ward Churchill

From the "about damn time" category (via PirateBallerina), yet another CU committee (Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket**, how many do they have!?!?!?) is asking itself exactly why a dismissed professor named Ward Churchill should receive a $96,000 bonus for getting fired:

A CU committee is reexamining a rule that gives one year's pay to professors who are dismissed for cause.

On Friday the Educational Policy and University Standards [EPUS] committee re-opened discussion on this controversial issue, which came to the public's attention this summer when tenured CU Professor Ward Churchill was fired for plagiarism and academic misconduct. He will be paid $96,000 over the course of the next year.

“There is concern about why we pay this money,” [gee, ya think?--ed.] said R L Widmann, Chair of the CU Faculty Council and an ex officio member of the EPUS committee.

The policy stems from a 1940 document released by the American Association of University Professors, called the Statement of Principals on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The 11-page document says “teachers who are dismissed for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year from the date of notification of dismissal.

In August 1966, the CU Board of Regents approved the AAUP Statement of Principles.

About three to five years ago, Widmann said, EPUS re-endorsed the 1940 AAUP statement and the 1966 Regent vote.

But “as you can guess, the high-profile case that came up this summer raised the question again,” she said.

Why can't you just say the name, huh?

And is anyone else surprised that a document created by an association of university professors would essentially vote themselves a hefty severance package should any of them face dismissal, and call that plan a "statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure"?

The policy has its backers and, shall we say, some "institutional support":

One potential roadblock to changing the policy: CU is one of 25 colleges and universities with membership in the Association of American Universities, which approves the AAUP Statement on Principals of Academic Freedom and Tenure.

“If we were to remove support or stop this policy,” Widmann said, “we would be at odds with 24 other universities.”

The Director of AAUP Program in Academic Freedom and Tenure, Jonathan Knight, says a year's severance pay is recognition of the faculty member's contributions.

Lord knows, you don't want to be at odds with other academic institutions. Yes, recognizing Churchill's extensive contributions to CU--plagiarism, academic dishonesty, negative publicity--the list goes on and on . . .

For a mere $100k, CU gets gems like these from Ward's triumphant pathetic return to an unsanctioned class on campus:

Churchill plans to teach the class his own way, which, he says, doesn't always include the truth.

"Truth is something you aspire to," said Churchill. "It's not something that can be simply taught."

Keep aspiring there, Wardo. For Churchill, the truth isn't something to be found, but something to be built. He should know, he's been manufacturing his own brand of bs truth for years.

---

**Forever in your debt, Drunka!

Around The Drunkablog/PirateBallerina Axis; Columbus Day Update

The jackbooted thugs are wading through Ward's waste so you don't have to--Drunka takes on the (Stanley Fish) Fishman's analysis of Indoctrinate U and the politicization of academic "fields" like ethnic or gender studies, and strongly advises against listening to Ward's most recent bloviations "interview" (you know you want to!).

And in the second-half of the Wardo-related double feature, Drunka analyzes the still impending charges against CU instructor Benjamin Whitmer, in what PB appropriately dubs the "genocide of Benjie Whitmer's hand". PB also updates on Ward's Canadian adventures.

Thankfully the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement-Denver finally saw fit to update their own site and provide the "correct" version of events at Denver's Columbus Day Parade. They did manage to make use of the video provided by "some idiot white trash racist blogger", and though they failed to provide a link, I'm sure the crushing blow of traffic from their site would have overwhelmed the tiny servers at Google.

They did manage to post this photo:



The revolutionary moonbats touted their aggressive efforts on behalf of the imperially oppressed:

After the parade, the marchers went to the City and County building to await word on their comrades arrested earlier. While gathered there, a number of people took down the Amerikan flag flying above and turned it upside down and secured it in its new position with a lock. It was flying that way for hours.

This flagrant abuse of our nation's flag lasted less than a day. So much for the revolution . . .

But this really wasn't about KKKolumbus Day:

The celebration of Kolumbus Day is one symptom of Amerikan imperialism, and the only way to end Kolumbus Day is to end Amerika.

Based on RAIM-D's stellar efforts so far, the United States will certainly be around long after your moonbat kkkorpses (see, we can use K's too!) have been carbon-neutrally recycled into earth-saving and population decreasing KKKompost.

Hank Brown On CU, Higher Education, Ward Churhill

On Your Show, answering questions from 9NEWS' Adam Schrager and viewers.

And yes, Brown talks Ward Churchill--he "besmirched" the reputations of those around him.

Also, campus safety following the Virginia Tech massacre.

Ward Churchill Acknowledges University Indoctrination

Although indoctrination--teaching students what to think instead of how to think on their own--is something that others do, not Churchill himself:

“I was hired for what I do,” he said, not because of claims of Native ancestry. Likewise, “I’ve been fired for what I was hired to do.”

That, he said, is to provoke people into thinking about and challenging prevailing notions of U.S. history and global politics.

“Nobody is being taught how to think,” he said. Instead, most universities are “teaching people what to think. That’s indoctrination.”

Churchill seems to have a problem with projection. One scholar's provocation is another's indoctrination. At least he recognizes that the problem exists, though he has the roles and the agenda reversed.

He continues:

Churchill says he never expected his views to draw widespread attention, yet he has found that “it’s validating. I always had the expectation of restrictions” on free speech and academic freedom, he said, but “it’s an abstraction until you actually experience it.”

By firing him, the CU regents “gutted academic freedom,” he said. “Academic freedom only has meaning in the face of controversy and outrage.”

Translation: I never expected to be challenged! Academic freedom only has meaning when applied to scholars like me!

Churchill knows that controversy sells, so his claim of astonishment rings hollow.

Professors On The Battlefield?

Academics and warfare--and no, we're not talking about Ward Churchill's fragging suggestion--have taken up a startling but profound new relationship in the current war:

Marcus Griffin is not a soldier. But now that he cuts his hair "high and tight" like a drill sergeant's, he understands why he is being mistaken for one. Mr. Griffin is actually a professor of anthropology at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Va. His austere grooming habits stem from his enrollment in a new Pentagon initiative, the Human Terrain System. It embeds social scientists with brigades in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they serve as cultural advisers to brigade commanders.

Mr. Griffin, a bespectacled 39-year-old who speaks in a methodical monotone, believes that by shedding some light on the local culture-- thereby diminishing the risk that U.S. forces unwittingly offend Iraqi sensibilities--he can improve Iraqi and American lives. On the phone from Fort Benning, two weeks shy of boarding a plane bound for Baghdad, he describes his mission as "using knowledge in the service of human freedom."

The Human Terrain System is part of a larger trend: Nearly six years into the war on terror, there is reason to believe that the Vietnam-era legacy of mistrust--even hostility--between academe and the military may be eroding.
. . .
So will these instances of cooperation be enduring? Do they represent the harbinger of a more pervasive reconsideration of Vietnam-era pieties in academe? Hard to say. But it somehow seems significant that no less an archetype of Vietnam-era agitation than Tom Hayden emerged last month to raise the dusty banner of anti-military antagonism. In an essay posted on the Web site of the Nation magazine, he attacked Ms. Sewall for collaborating with Gen. Petraeus on the new manual, which he dismissed as "an academic formulation to buttress and justify a permanent engagement in counter-terrorism wars" that "runs counter to the historic freedom of university life."

Mr. Hayden's article suggests a bizarre conception of the role of scholars in American life: that they should be held to a priestly standard of ethical purity. "Are academics so much purer than anybody else that we can't ever be in situations where we are confronting tough ethical choices?" asks Noah Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard who briefly, in 2003, was an adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority. "If academics didn't get involved with these kinds of difficult questions, maybe all that would be left is a department of Kantian philosophy," he jokes. "Then we would be pure, but we would be irrelevant."

Some academics think that their purity (ideological, identity, etc.) precludes them from things like criticism--"how dare the unwashed, uneducated masses question our authority?"

Irrelevant? No.

Irresponsible? Well, you know the answer to that one.

American Higher Ed Supports Israeli Colleagues

Finally a college petition we can get behind (and one that doesn't involve Ward Churchill)--some American college and university presidents (including the Association of American Universities) took out an advertisement that opposed "the United Kingdom's University and College Union's proposed boycott of Israeli universities."

Conspicuously absent? Yale and Harvard.

Diversity Not Panacea, Leads To Lower Social Capital

So says the sure-to-be controversial findings of a Harvard professor:

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

Whoops! And CU just hired a new diversity czar:

The University of Colorado announced Friday that Sallye McKee will become the first vice chancellor for diversity, equity and community engagement.
. . .
"I want students to say, 'Because I was at CU-Boulder, I'm able to live and work better as a leader in a global society,'" McKee said. "We want to work on building a campus climate that is safe and respectful."

The new position elevates the dialogue about diversity to the chancellor's cabinet.

"This is a very important step as a university," said Chancellor G.P. "Bud" Peterson. "When the senior leadership team meets to talk about issues of all sorts, the diversity perspective will be present at the table and have input. That hasn't always been the case."

Not sure what the "diversity perspective" is, other than what it has traditionally been--a token minority. Too bad CU doesn't mean diversity of ideas, of thoughts. The pop multiculturalism on college campuses these days tends toward stressing the inherent differences of cultures, the superiority of those "outside the norm" (non-white, non-Christian), and the inevitable Balkanization of campus social groups. While an undergraduate, I was encouraged to spend more time with "my people" by joining UMAS y MeChA. Needless to say, identity politics was not what I had in mind when I considered expanding my thought horizon in college. Judgement by character and not skin color was what I had been relentlessly reminded of since elementary school--now skin color, ethnicity, etc. was the most important factor and indeed determinant of social position within the university.

Assuming that any group shares more than a superficial similarity in upbringing, socialization, etc. is nothing short of stereotyping. Assigning worth based on such assumptions--brown, LGBT, progressive = good; white, straight, conservative/Christian = bad--has been the polarizing mode of conduct for the past three decades. This avenue of "diversity" has produced the negative results, the loss in social capital that Putnam observes:

"People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam writes.

In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the "contact" theory and the "conflict" theory. Under the contact theory, more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory, that proximity produces tension and discord.

Putnam's findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group.

"Diversity, at least in the short run," he writes, "seems to bring out the turtle in all of us."

Within the context of the university, the tendency toward "hunkering down" overtakes all other dimensions, as students naturally flock to similarly-minded peers in social activities and clubs as they continue the process of "finding themselves". Even the most "open-minded" eventually find the group or social milieu that best expresses their sense of being or answers some of their questions. This is, in fact, encouraged.

The backlash to this study should be interesting to follow (unless, of course, they choose to suppress it). If this is what is meant by academic freedom--challenging the status quo with rigorous scholarship and meaningful study, then cheers to all. I'm sure the Ward Churchills of the academic world are none too pleased that one of their shibboleths has been challenged in the public's eye.

Around The Blogosphere 081007

Drunkablog and PirateBallerina take a look at the moonbats signing the pro-Churchill petition calling for immediate reinstatement, the cost of Churchill's dismissal, and Ward Connerly's misguided notion to employ the ridiculous "Fairness Doctrine" in academia.

Catch all the latest on the 2008 Senate race at Schaffer v Udall.

State GOP alleges state Dems moved funds away from transportation infrastructure to their own mix of pet projects--while liberals allege that it is the conservative/GOP dislike of taxation that is the true cause of our infrastructure meltdown.