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.

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!

Ward Churchill Returns To Class, Bars Media; Scuffle Prompts Police Report

Photo by Joshua Lawton--Former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill tells a Camera reporter that media outlets are not allowed in an unsanctioned class called "ReVisioning American History" on the Boulder campus Tuesday night. Churchill is speaking at the weekly classes, organized by students.

Smug whackademic Fired professor Ward Churchill returned to CU Tuesday night to a staggering 30 CU students and "area residents":

Churchill elicited applause and handshakes from the majority of the 30 or so CU students and area residents who came to hear his lecture, which he titled "ReVisioning American History: Colonization, Genocide and Formation of the U.S. Settler State."

Churchill, who did not allow the Camera to attend the class, said the group would come up with various topics to discuss.

"I've been invited by people who are concerned with content of the mind," Churchill said.

Euphoria from only a majority? How did the other dissenting jackbooted thugs get in?

"Content of the mind"? It's a good thing the class is free and without credit . . .

But Churchill's fawning admirers were quick to defend their beloved ex-professor:

Aaron Smith, a 24-year-old senior political science and ethnic studiesmajor, said he helped organize the class because he and other students wanted to hear what Churchill had to say.

"We were deprived of his teaching," Smith said of the university's decision to fire Churchill, who taught American Indian studies. "He was one of the most valuable professors we've had on this campus."

Most valuable in as far as bringing negative attention and notoriety to CU Boulder. Perhaps if Churchill had paid as much attention to creating professional scholarship as his shameless self-promotion, he would still be the chair of the Ethnic Studies department at CU, albeit an anti-American crank.

Anyone--students, faculty, "area residents"--can check out Churchill's books for free from a library, but some just had to see the perfesser for themselves:

Tuesday's class, which student organizers said would likely continue for three weeks and then reconvene in the spring for a "second semester," is not sanctioned by the university. University spokesman Bronson Hilliard on Tuesday emphasized that Churchill was speaking at a "private event."

The event drew the attendance of former Churchill students and those who had only heard his name before through media reports of his controversial tenure at CU.

"I'm coming into this very skeptical," said Russell Hedman, a 21-year-old senior political science major at CU. "I'm skeptical that there's something here that I'm missing — but I'm also coming into this with an open mind."

A three week semester? So substance fits the time allotted?

At least one faculty member at CU understands the concept of freedom of speech, unlike Churchill and his followers:

Kelly Tryba, a CU journalism instructor who was holding class next door to Churchill's lecture, was critical of Churchill for not allowing the Camera inside the classroom.

"I think any student group should be able to rent out a room and have someone speak; but anyone should be able to go," she said. "The freedom of speech goes both ways."

And as a private event, those jackbooted ballerina thugs Daily Camera reporter and student "agitators" couldn't make it past Churchill's busy-bodyguards:

Two men who identified themselves as event organizers turned away three male CU students at the door, calling them "agitators."

One of the men watching the door, who did not give his name, became physical with a Camera reporter who tried to enter the room — grabbing his arm and pushing him — prompting a report to police.

Looks like the only thugs were inside the room with Churchill.

**Update--a peek at Churchill's syllabus:

Churchill handed out a class syllabus, which includes scheduled classes to be held Oct. 9 about colonialism, Oct. 23 on genocide and Oct. 30 about racism.

I'm . . . shocked!

A Churchill advocate offers an "alternative" explanation of last night's event.

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.

Cindy Carlisle Explains Dissenting Churchill Vote

CU Regent and Democrat Cindy Carlisle explains her lone dissenting vote as "deference" to the Privilege and Tenure Committee:

The sole University of Colorado Board of Regents member to vote against firing a professor who compared some Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi said she followed the recommendation of a faculty committee, which suggested suspension.

Regent Cindy Carlisle told the Summit Daily News for its Friday edition that the Privilege and Tenure Committee had voted 3-2 to suspend former ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill for one year and demote him. CU President Hank Brown recommended Churchill be fired.

"I thought that they were the reviewing body who had the most at stake in terms of reviewing this," Carlisle said when contacted while on vacation in Hawaii. "They're active faculty. They're upholding the reputation of everything. They do the research, the teaching, the everything. I thought they would be in the best position to judge what the outcome should be."

Summit County Republicans criticized Carlisle for being the only regent to vote no in an 8-1 decision July 24 to fire Churchill for research misconduct, that included allegations of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism

Carlisle is a Democrat who represents Summit, Eagle, Grand, Clear Creek, Gilpin and Boulder counties.

In a follow-up letter on the issue, Carlisle said the reasons for her vote were "institutional." "As the case presented purely academic issues, I believed respect for faculty governance was of overriding importance. Plus, the work of the Privilege and Tenure Committee was extremely impressive both hard-hitting and fair and entitled to deference," she wrote.

Whether out of respect for the academics' recommendations or an attempt to shift responsibility away from herself, we can't help but feel that Carlisle's vote was calculated to bring her sympathy as a lone voice for free speech, and provide token "credibility" to the Regents' vote--for the Churchill-types, that is.

Churchill Updates 080307--Deranged Supporters Can't Spell, Ode To Churchill

**Update
RMN columnist Mike Rosen discusses how a deranged Case Western Reserve University doctoral candidate and Churchill supporters equates CU's Regents to Nazis (and has difficulty spelling anything correctly), and how Churchill's dismissal has nothing to do with free speech:

"Subject: You are f**king nazi's (sic)

"It is IMPOSSIBLE to speak politely, intelligibly, with reason to moral cretins masquarding (sic) as humans, cretins utterly devoid of intelligence, humanity, common sense, courage: YOU ARE ALL F**KING NAZI'S (sic). May you and all your progeny burn in hell for eternity. Perhaps there is a special place there for nazi's (sic)."

The above e-mail was sent to all nine of the CU regents July 25, the day after their decision to fire Ward Churchill. The sender was one Paulette Sage, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Case Western Reserve University. Sage's spelling deficiencies and her ignorance of the difference between the plural and possessive is embarrassing enough, but her equating the CU regents with Nazis is positively idiotic.

Sadly, Sage typifies hysterical academic leftists distraught at Churchill's demise and appalled that one of their own tenured philosopher-kings could be held accountable for his behavior by administrators, taxpayers, tuition-paying customers, the community or even a panel of fellow academics.

---

Ward Churchill flunks the First Amendment:

Churchill will argue that no matter how offensive his speech, the First Amendment is designed expressly for the purpose of protecting his right to say it, and that faculty members especially must be able to speak and write unpopular views because their role is to stimulate free and open debate on cutting edge, controversial issues. He is right up to a point. Courts have granted more leeway to professors to say offensive things than they have accorded to administrators, on the theory that unrestrained exchange of ideas lies at the core of academic freedom.

However, there are outer limits. The University of Colorado should not have to tolerate speech which can reasonably be expected to cause serious disruptions of its normal operations. For example, there is an active ROTC program on campus. The university would have a legitimate concern that Churchill’s incitements to kill or maim military officers could threaten the peaceful functioning of this program and lead to further disruptions on campus.

Academic freedom must be accompanied by academic responsibility. Professor Churchill’s defamatory and incitement speech failed the test of First Amendment protection. He deserved to be fired on this basis alone. Of course, if the allegations against Churchill regarding plagiarism and other acts of misconduct turn out to be true, his firing is a no-brainer.

---

A little "love" poetry (think Barry White) for the ex-professor.

Things are a little "tense" for the professors at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs campus following the Churchill dismissal.

On The Abolition Of Tenure II; Churchill Updates

Stanley Kurtz has a follow-up to the recommendations he outlined yesterday.

Reason's Michael Moynihan argues that Churchill's own actions led to his downfall (h/t PirateBallerina):

But Churchill is disingenuous (or naïve) when expressing surprise that politically-motivated hatchet men would scrutinize his academic record. He is, after all, a political activist both in his private time and in his classroom. Fair or not, insert yourself into a contentious political debate, and expect to be treated like a politician.

Just ask Michael Bellesiles, author of the discredited book Arming America. Those who criticized the integrity of Bellesiles's book—which argued that the conventional wisdom regarding America's colonial gun culture was a mere "folk tale"—did so, the author harrumphed, for ideological reasons. His critics were engaging in rank "McCarthyism" and, as Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote in reason, Bellesiles complained that the book had been "subjected to unfair, unprecedented scrutiny." But an Emory University commission disagreed, ruling that the book was marred not only by errors and distortions, but also phantom (i.e. invented) evidence. After the report was made public, he was fired and previous sponsors, like the National Endowment for the Humanities, pulled support. Bellesiles denounced it as a "political decision that should send chills through academics everywhere and is clearly intended as a warning to any scholar who dares to work on a controversial topic."

Is Hank Brown the model university president? One columnist thinks so.

On The Abolition Of Tenure, Ward Churchill Edition

David French outlines the debate on tenure with some pretty revealing numbers:

Despite the mountain of evidence against Churchill, it took more than two years for the wheels of justice to turn. As he received more due process than ordinary Americans ever receive in the course of their professional lives, Churchill's dogged fight to keep his job only reinforced for many the notion that faculty members view themselves as a breed apart - entitled to lucrative lifetime employment no matter what they do.

That will be Ward Churchill's lasting legacy. He was the tipping point. Now, it's not just leading conservatives who view the academy as an out-of-control, disconnected bastion of petulant entitlement. In a recent Zogby poll, 58 percent of Americans reported that they now believe that political bias of professors is a "serious problem." Even more, 65 percent, viewed non-tenured professors as more motivated to do a good job in the classroom.

These are not isolated findings. A survey by the American Association of University Professors found that 58.4 percent of Americans had only some or no confidence in our colleges and that 82 percent want to modify or eliminate tenure.

The academic left decries the "chilling effect" of Churchill's firing, but the only individuals who should feel "chilled" are those professors publicly spewing deranged invective at that same time that they conceal a professional past rife with fraud and abuse. In reality, there was no chilling effect in Churchill's case - only a cleansing effect as higher education scrubbed itself of the man who, more than anyone else, proved that something is very wrong with our universities.

Academics who view themselves, in French's words, "as a breed apart" should acknowledge that Churchill's dismissal was actually a demonstration that tenure should be restricted to those individual scholars whose high academic rigor bolsters their arguments in favor of employing just such a system. Guaranteed academic employment (barring academic misconduct such as Churchill's or "acts of moral turpitude") should come with some basic professional standards, just as membership in the legal or medical professions do. As the professors themselves are in charge of hiring and firing, they are entrusted with "policing their own", and in this case, the professors found Churchill's conduct wanting.

But why do so many professors from the left--those charging the public, the media, neocons, etc. with producing a "chilling effect" on free speech and academic discourse--fear Churchill's removal? Any clear-thinking individual who examines a scenario like this would determine that rather than having a deleterious effect on their profession, a removal like this would actually strengthen their claim to tenure's benefits, and further justify its existence.

In addition, why do these same critics find the whole process so unappealing (besides their own political motivations), and so threatening to their existence? They themselves are in charge--not politicians like former Gov. Bill Owens who called for Churchill's firing, nor state legislators, nor the public at large. Even the CU Regents and the President can not fire a professor until the due process review has been conducted. Are these professors really just afraid of each other? A bad review or denial of tenure can damage a career, so are many more deficiencies ignored or tacitly acknowledged in exchange for similar treatment down the line, an academic quid pro quo that mitigates worries about rival academics' abilities to throw another colleague under the bus? Maybe that explains at least some of the 199 named professors who called for the investigation of Churchill to be rescinded.

Stanley Kurtz, who calls for the abolition of tenure, has some thoughts on what would replace it, should academic reform ever be implemented:

What would replace tenure? Probably long-term contracts. I believe a few schools have already experimented with this. As noted, the change would be grandfathered in, and at best would only happen piecemeal. So prospects of a catastrophe would be slight, while there would be plenty of time for experimentation with new arrangements. But I guarantee you, even the slightest prospect of change (i.e. one state legislature seriously debating the end of tenure in its public university system) would send the professorate into a mad rage, and would provoke a major national debate about the state of higher education as a whole. That debate would provide an opening for all sorts of academic reforms, not limited to tenure.

More than anything else, the conversion of tenure from a protector of academic freedom into an instrument of ideological exclusion is responsible for the destruction of the campus marketplace of ideas. Tenure is the cornerstone of the campus political-correctness problem, and even beginning a serious effort to remove it would almost certainly shake up the entire academic system. The time to consider a serious campaign to eliminate academic tenure has come.

Replacing tenure, however, would not eliminate the type of wackademic frauds that typically find their way into places of higher learning, whether attracted by ideology or an escape from the real world of the marketplace of ideas to the insulated, ivory tower where proclamations that disdain the "unwashed masses" when they do not fall in line, are not only acceptable but encouraged. Restructuring or eliminating tenure would have a positive impact on the teaching at this country's universities, with more attractive compensation as the salaries are redistributed (the left should endorse that!) toward teaching load and quality (as reflected by peer and student reviews), and away from the sort of navel-gazing "research", extended sabbaticals, and diminished teaching loads that produces graduate student enmity and second-class status for non-tenured positions. Surely the entrenched left in the professoriate wouldn't mind a little redistributive justice and equality?

**Update--
An LATimes columnist says CU didn't go far enough in firing Churchill--the whole Ethnic Studies department should have been examined and possibly eliminated as well:

What should concern us all, however, is academia's nurturance of loons like the hate-filled Churchill. No, they are not many, but they shout louder than their numbers would suggest. And though their influence is minor in American higher education overall, they can be very influential in particular fields, such as comparative literature and gender and ethnic studies. That's because the problem on campuses isn't rigorous Marxist materialists, as conservative stereotypes would have you believe, but craven emotional warriors in the arena of identity politics.

Ethnic studies departments, such as Churchill's, may be the worst offenders. Created in the wake of the ethnic pride movement in the early 1970s, many simply never had the same kind of academic oversight as more established and prestigious fields. Those professors generally toiled with little funding in isolated intellectual ghettos. Their scholarship wasn't tested in the high-stakes, high-profile competition that hones other academics and other fields. They earned their "psychic income" -- a phrase coined by former Gov. Jerry Brown -- trying to turn minority undergraduates into activists. (Meanwhile, the quality work on ethnicity was being done in more traditional disciplines.)

But by most accounts, today's undergraduates of all backgrounds tend to be in search of good jobs rather than ideological causes. If anything, ethnic studies are part of the accepted last stage of American education, the puncturing of myths -- in elementary school, we learn that George Washington could not tell a lie; in high school, we learn the dates and details of Valley Forge; in college, we learn that the father of our country was a hypocritical slave owner; and then, after college, few ever think about Washington again.

Still, just because an academic field is relatively harmless and even irrelevant (in the eyes of many fellow academics) doesn't mean that shoddy professors who can't sort fact from ideology should be tolerated, particularly at taxpayer expense. The Churchill case might be closed, but university officials nationwide have an obligation to bring scrutiny and the ideal of objectivity to these below-par departments -- perhaps by dismantling and absorbing them into more rigorous disciplines and insisting, not on any one set of views or conclusions, but on the high standards of scholarship that we expect from the best of academia.

**Update 2--
PirateBallerina notes that dissenting CU Regent Cindy Carlisle is catching flak from her constituents over last week's vote:

Local Republicans want Summit County's representative on CU's Board of Regents to better explain her reasons for casting the lone dissenting vote against dismissing controversial professor Ward Churchill.

The board voted 8-1 last week to fire Churchill, a tenured professor of ethnic studies, after determining he had "engaged in acts of research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification and plagiarism," according to a report from the regents.

Regent Cindy Carlisle, a Democrat who represents Summit, Eagle, Clear Creek, Grand, Gilpin and Boulder counties, was the only regent who didn't support Churchill's dismissal.

"If Ms. Carlisle could not vote to fire Professor Ward Churchill despite the overwhelming evidence of his academic fraud and misconduct, we would also ask her to explain what circumstances would lead her to recommend that a tenured faculty member be fired," said Summit County GOP chairwoman Debra Irvine.

Churchill Fallout Continued

Drunkablog has another excellent roundup of post-Churchill commentary, including a nice Al Capone analogy.

And for those who missed it, Ward sat down with Fox's Ron Zappolo over the weekend.

Keep up to date with all the latest Churchillians at PirateBallerina.

Vincent Carroll and Craig Silverman discuss "little Eichmanns".

Hank Brown--Upholding CU's Integrity; Vincent Carroll On The Nature Of Adolf Eichmann

In an op-ed, Hank Brown explains the need for academic integrity, and the importance of the recent decision to dismiss Ward Churchill:

Faculty integrity is the cornerstone of every great university. The University of Colorado is no exception.
. . .
While the academic misconduct of one person should not tarnish the reputation for integrity CU faculty have worked so hard to build and maintain, his case is troubling. Charges of research misconduct led more than 20 faculty members (from CU and other universities) on three separate panels to review his work.

The faculty found a pattern of serious, repeated and deliberate research misconduct that included fabrication, falsification, improper citation and plagiarism.

Faculty reviewers unanimously agreed that the evidence showed professor Churchill engaged in research misconduct and that it required serious sanction.

That sanction was carried out Tuesday when the CU Board of Regents approved my recommendation to dismiss professor Churchill from the Boulder campus faculty.
. . .
Coloradans give us almost $200 million a year, federal taxpayers fund some $640 million in research annually, all to support quality education and research.

Our alumni expect us to maintain the value of their degrees, and students and their families trust that faculty who teach them adhere to the standards of the university and the profession. Failure to maintain academic integrity would cause irreparable harm.
. . .
By any measure, we have an outstanding faculty. Among them are Nobel Prize winners, recipients of the MacArthur Foundation "genius" awards, researchers at the forefront of scientific discovery and teachers whose work is guided by those who came before. The common thread is that they take pride in their work and understand their obligation to live up to the high standards of their profession and of CU.

In the end, CU will not be judged by the shoddy work of one faculty member but by the excellence the rest of the faculty demonstrate every day in classrooms and research laboratories.

The reputation for academic integrity and excellence built by generations of CU faculty, students and alumni will remain intact because the university's Board of Regents acted to protect it.

Rebuilding that reputation took a small step forward Tuesday. Brown clearly recognized the true obligation of a university, whose customers are neither the faculty nor the bureaucracy--but taxpayers who underwrite the institution and parents and students who pay for world-class educations. CU's first priority should be to these constituencies, not the petulant academics whose responsibility it must be to maintain the academic integrity and professional standards they claim provides the basis for awarding the Holy Grail of academia: tenure.

The RMN's Vincent Carroll explains to the Denver Post, and anyone else fooled by the notion that Churchill's "little Eichmanns" was a mere turn of phrase, the true nature of SS Obersturmbannführer (lieutenant colonel) Adolf Eichmann:

Eichmann was no mere foot soldier, mindless bureaucrat or technocrat . . . Why such a big deal about these distinctions? So that we remain faithful to history, of course. But also so that we understand the meaning of “little Eichmanns.” If someone calls you that, he’s not equating you to a mindless foot soldier in an ugly cause. He’s comparing you to an architect of genocide.

Which is why Churchill's commentary on the 9/11 victims continues to be an outrageous defamation, and illustrates the anti-American nature of Churchill's quackery.

---

**Bonus audio/transcript of Churchill and student-acolyte, lamenting his dismissal. Excerpt:

ANN ERIKA WHITEBIRD: And the decision to fire Ward Churchill is really sad for me. He's the only professor that I’ve taken a class, where I really felt empowered as an Indigenous person. And our history, the history of genocide against our people, the history, the policy, the US policy of extermination against our people, the forced sterilization of our women -- that was found out as early as the ’70s -- it was all something that Ward talks about in his books. So I’m not just talking about the class that he’s offered, the FBI at Pine Ridge, but, you know, other classes that he teaches and then the books that he's written is really affirming as a Native person.

The history that we hear growing up about the smallpox blankets, it's not something that you question. It's something that is part of our oral history. And it's part of the history of other indigenous peoples. So when I’m here at CU Boulder and I talk to other students who are Dene or from other nations, it's a common understanding.

It's not about scholarship, it's about making people feel "empowered"--not by the truth, mind you, but by whatever version of history suits your agenda.

9NEWS has a lengthy video of the moonbat presser following the CU Regents' vote. Emma Perez, Ethnic Studies associate professor, believes this is a veiled attack on tenure granted to women and people of color . . . Margaret Lecompte, professor of Education, attacks the "right-wing", CU "not a safe place" for academics . . . Tom Mayer, professor of sociology and Ward Churchill advocate is "distressed" . . . Hadley Brown, CU Tri-Exec, believes it is an attack on minority points of view . . . Ann Erika Whitebird, student and Churchill acolyte, sees the firing as "racist" and a continuation of racism she sees everyday on campus from "conservative, white Christians".

The Churchill saga, by the numbers

**More
Academics fear "chilling effect", Churchill's pension will be around $70k/year
CU likely to try to move Churchill's lawsuit to federal court
Churchill firing pleases alumni, donors

Churchill Dismissal Commentary

PirateBallerina has an excellent roundup of post-Ward commentary, including the amusing Reason article "Some Regents Push Back: Chief Lies-alot Fired", which includes yet another example of Churchill's predilection for misrepresenting historical facts.

Drunkablog takes apart RMN columnist Mike Littwin's lame "Ward was lynched" screed, and a little Miller-time.

Peter Wood says Churchill's firing diminishes the campus moonbats.

Churchill: Lawsuit Edition

**Update--It's official, Drunkablog has the details, as well as a good post-mortem roundup

More blathering from Churchill's legal flack David Lane:

Hours before Churchill was fired Tuesday, Lane announced he planned to file a civil lawsuit in a Denver District Court rather than in a federal court because federal courts are "inundated with cases."

Lane said he predicted it would take about a year to get a trial.

He also said a jury pool in a Denver District Court would be more representative of the overall population.

"The minority population of Denver is much more greater than it is in the northern tier or Colorado generally," Lane said yesterday. "But I’m not reading into that anything in particular. That is the demographic fact of life."

The 2006 suit claimed the university failed to pay $20,000 owed for Churchill’s attorney fees, Lane said.

Lane said the suite was filed in Denver because the university’s headquarters are in that jurisdiction.

If you are not reading into anything, Mr. Lane, why bring it up?


Will work for fraud food. Courtesy of El Marco, who has more photos of Churchill et al.

Lawsuitpalooza? Ward Part Deux?

Neither CU President Hank Brown or Board Chair Patricia Hayes felt intimidated by potential legal action:

Both also said they were not swayed by the threat of legal action.

"I don't think a great university can be intimidated by legal action," said Brown.

"We (the regents) did not discuss any possibility of a lawsuit," said Hayes.

"This was an issue of what's best for the university and we had to step up to the plate and do what's best for the university," said Hayes.

Hayes also said they do not believe the decision will have a chilling effect on other professors.

"True academics will say this is a place they want to be," said Hayes.

"The message this sends is that the university faces up to problems and deals with them and that we are a reliable institution," said Brown.

And as much as yesterday's sacking of Ward Churchill brought closure--it also represented just the prelude to Churchill's guaranteed next step:

The next chapter is set to begin Wednesday, when the controversial academic and his civil rights attorney, David Lane, sue the university in Denver District Court.

Churchill warned that his dismissal is the beginning of a wider attack on scholars with unpopular political views.

"If you think I’m the endgame, you’re wrong," Churchill told supporters. "This is the kickoff.
. . .
Churchill, 59, said he would remain visible at CU while waging his court fight.

"I am going nowhere," he said. "It’s not about breaking. It’s not about bending. It’s not about compromising. When you negotiate your rights, you haven’t got any."

Let me rewrite that for you, Ward, to reflect CU's position--"It's not about breaking. It's not about bending. It's not about compromising. When you negotiate your standards, you haven't got any." There. Much better.

Now for the lawsuit specifics:

Lane said he will amend an existing lawsuit against the university today in Denver District Court. Already, he has sued asking that CU pay his legal fees. He said he will ask a jury for an unspecified amount of money and that Churchill be reinstated.

CU Regent Cindy Carlisle, the lone dissenting vote, offered a simple explanation for her decision:

Regent Cindy Carlisle, who cast the dissenting vote, said she thought firing was too tough a penalty. She agreed with the Privilege and Tenure Committee’s 3-2 vote in May to suspend Churchill for a year without pay.

There were some clear winners in today's decision--the authors misrepresented by Churchill:

R.G. Robertson, author of Rotting Face: Smallpox and the American Indian, said he was glad that Churchill’s supporters did not sway the regents.

"I’m glad that scholarship, or the ideal of scholarship, won out over somebody’s weird view of political correctness," he said. "I’m happy that it happened, that he’s been found out, and, by his peers — meaning other university people — and been called what he is, a plagiarizer and a liar."

Robertson’s book was among those cited by investigators as having been mischaracterized by Churchill.

"Facts are facts and truth is truth, and when you’re dealing with history I think it doesn’t need to be distorted by people with a warped political objective," Robertson said.

Another author whose work was mischaracterized by Churchill said the firing was appropriate punishment.

"It’s important to know Indian history, and it’s important to know factual Indian history, not just a bunch of B.S. that someone made up," said Russell Thornton, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Churchill attributed assertions that the Army deliberately spread smallpox among Indians to one of Thornton’s books, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492.

Ward and Co. vow to fight on:

Moments after the University of Colorado Regents voted to fire Ward Churchill, one of his supporters at the back of the Glenn Miller Ballroom shouted out, "Now it’s your turn!"

"You’re right," Churchill replied just before joining in with several American Indians from South Dakota as they started drumming and chanting the freedom song from the American Indian Movement.

Several of Churchill’s supporters decried the regents’ statements that they were dismissing him for a pattern of academic misconduct.

"I want to be clear," said Tom Mayer, a CU-Boulder sociology professor. "This is a political firing with academic camouflage.
"I believe the people who voted (to dismiss Churchill) are the same people who would have voted against Socrates, Galileo ... and anyone else with an unpopular point of view."

Lane doesn't think that a federal jury will give his client a fair shake (Lane and Churchill discriminate?):

Lane said he will sue in Denver District Court, rather than federal court, because he can get a trial sooner.

But he also said a Denver jury is more likely to be sympathetic than a federal jury, which would include "a lot of small-town people who are not enamored of Churchill."

Of course, all those right-wing, racist bastards in rural Colorado who don't accept Churchill's academic fraud. Shame on them! Let's go get a pro-Churchill jury down in the city!

A possible settlement?

Lukianoff said he expects that the First Amendment case could survive summary judgment and conclude with the university entering a settlement with Churchill.

"I think that overall, it's going to be an interesting, but difficult, lawsuit," he said.

The "media horde" pounded this story, with its First Amendment implications and the question of academic misconduct. While the majority of the MSM provided obligatory coverage due to the furor erupting at the beginning of the whole affair (with the Rocky Mountain News' investigative pursuit as a distinct exception), talk radio and blogs ultimately kept the story alive and the pressure consistent.

Unscientific polls at 9NEWS and the Denver Post don't seem to be leaning Churchill's way: