ACLU Wants Change In Nudity Laws In Colorado For Naked Protesting

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, the old saw goes.

The ACLU may be on to something here, as another form of automatic/zero-tolerance comes under fire:

The American Civil Liberties Union plans to lobby for changes to Colorado laws that require nude offenders to register as sex offenders, claiming the laws are unusually harsh.

"We are very concerned about the way in which the Colorado sex-offender registry is set up, resulting in sex-offender status for these kinds of activities," Judd Golden, who chairs the Boulder County chapter of the ACLU, told the Boulder Daily Camera.

The ACLU will host a public forum Tuesday called "Naked in Boulder." The forum will discuss whether nude offenders should be treated as "pranksters and protesters, or criminals and sex offenders."

Protesting in the nude is not something that Tea Party-goers will be doing anytime soon, as this remains exclusively within the domain of left-leaning organizations. But naked bike rides are hardly worthy of sex-offender registry punishments--eye bleach yes, but nothing more.

Boulder's DA provides the highlight of the article--when dealing with the issue of nudity in public, word choice is always important:

"We're dealing with a square peg in a round hole," Stan Garnett, who became Boulder County's district attorney shortly after the pumpkin running incident, told the Camera. "Most people would say people running down the mall with pumpkins on their heads may not be somebody who is at risk of becoming a sex offender in the future."

Heh.

Last year's Naked Bike Ride in Denver (NSFW, eye bleach warning).

Ward Churchill, Dinesh D'Souza Debate Western Civilization

And, as usual, Ward Churchill brings a knife to the proverbial intellectual gun battle against Dinesh D'Souza:

Churchill began the debate by calling Western civilization a “synthesis of lies” and a “fraud” because it plagiarized and assimilated ideas from other cultures without giving due credit. He said that he “didn’t quite know what Western civilization is,” but that it was triumphalist and supremacist.

“There is no argument against Western civilization at all from Ward Churchill,” D’Souza responded. “His argument is against the narrative of Western civilization.”

D’Souza discussed how the world has progressed and benefited from the influences of Western civilization. According to D’Souza, Western civilization has humanized the world. He noted that while Western civilization participated in slavery, abolitionism is a uniquely Western concept.

“The Chinese had slaves, the Indians had slaves, even the American Indians had slaves before Columbus ever step foot on this continent. It is not slavery that is Western, it is abolition.”
. . .
“For me Western civilization isn’t just about a theory, it’s about a life lived in America. We’re debating whether the West has made life better, and it certainly has for me,” said D’Souza. “Ward Churchill is taking the tragic facts of history and ideologizing them into white oppression.”

Of course Churchill doesn't know what Western Civilization is--but he knows that he is against it, and uses the same anti-imperialist claptrap that has gained him such a following on the left.

However, it appears it must be time to fill the legal war chest, as it would have baffled even the casual observer of Churchill's typical MO of avoiding real debate while he was still a tenured professor. Either that or the election of Barack Obama has stolen away some of Churchill's coveted left-wing victimization and tinfoil-hat crowd.

In related tinfoil-hattedness news, Drunkablog keeps an eye on the progress of those arrested during the DNC--complete with ACLU-liciousness.

DNC Protest Groups File Bigger Lawsuit, Seek More Concessions

Give 'em an inch:

Groups wanting to protest at the Democratic National Convention filed new court challenges to Denver and the Secret Service's rules governing protests and parades, saying they violate the public's right to free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents 13 protest groups, has filed an amended complaint in federal court asking U.S. District Judge Marcia S. Krieger to order the city and Secret Service to make changes.

What are the protestors seeking?

Glad you asked:

Move the "public demonstration zone," a fenced area where groups would be allowed to protest, to be within sight and sound of delegates entering the Pepsi Center.

The zone is currently planned for a corner of Lot A, or VIP parking, farthest from the Pepsi Center entrance.

"No human voice, or any other sound ... can ever hope to reach a person at the entrance to the Pepsi Center from inside the Public Demonstration Zone," the ACLU wrote in court documents.

No sound perhaps, but the wafting patchouli/body odor might be overwhelming. Believe me, the delegates will know the protestors are there.

Next:

Allow protesters to hand out leaflets to delegates or others attending the convention who are within the "hard security zone," or secured perimeter, of the Pepsi Center. The city has said this will not be allowed, according to the ACLU lawsuit.

Nope. Security concerns aside, leaflets aren't "green." Come on protestors, get on the "green" bandwagon!

Allow parades to pass near the Pepsi Center and at times when delegates are present.

The city's approved parade route runs from near Civic Center, west on Colfax Avenue and north on Speer Boulevard, and ends at Seventh Street and Auraria Parkway, which is the entry and exit point for the public demonstration zone in Parking Lot A.

It does not include Chopper Circle or Ninth Street, as the protest groups want.

The city is allowing parades only between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Convention organizers have said delegates will arrive at the Pepsi Center around 3 p.m. each day.

Unlikely, though corraling thousands of protestors left over from the afternoon parades into the small public demonstration zone in Lot A or getting them to disperse before the Pepsi Center will be a tall task.

Approve alternate parade routes for two groups. One group wants to hold an immigration parade that would start at 29th Street and Speer and run south to Sunken Gardens park. The other wants to march from Civic Center to the federal courthouse at 18th and Stout Streets to urge the release of political prisoners. The city has denied both requests.

City officials and the Secret Service have said they must balance the rights of people to express themselves with the need for security during the DNC, scheduled for Aug. 25 to 28.

They insist the public will still have ample opportunity to communicate with the delegates and others attending the convention.

Krieger has scheduled an all-day hearing for July 29 to consider the ACLU's requests.

Protestors want "Parade-A-Palooza" and the city has bent over backwards allowing at least SIXTEEN hours of parades during the four days of the convention. That is all, apparently, not enough.

ACLU Files Yet Another Lawsuit Against Denver Over DNC Security Plans, Equipment

Unsatisfied by previous setbacks from the city of Denver that argued security issues overrode disclosure of equipment purchases, the ACLU's new lawsuit once again focuses on “less lethal” weapons, vehicles, personal body armor, restraint devices, and barricades, fencing or netting”--“We believe the public interest is served by disclosing how the government is spending the public’s money,” said John Culver, ACLU Cooperating Attorney, who filed the Colorado open records suit.

**Update: Neal responds to the ACLU's request in comments:

"$XX million will be spent on keeping some dipshit protestors from violating everyone else's rights to free speech and peacable assembly. Without said dipshit protestors, the cost would be much, much less."

Indeed.

Denver To Reveal DNC Protest Parade Route June 12

**Update--Drunkablog notes that the ACLU is already discussing their "demands" in regards to the city's announced parade route plans

Following the ACLU/protest groups' lawsuit filed earlier this month, Denver will disclose the parade route, but will not specify where the route ends (cue whining):

Denver city officials said today they would disclose, by June 12, the route parades would be allowed to follow during the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Responding to a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of a dozen protest groups earlier this month, city officials also released some details regarding public demonstration areas.

By June 12, officials say they will provide the route street-by-street, but will not indicate exactly where the route ends. They said it would end "within walking distance of a public viewing area."

This is sure to draw the ire of the protestors, who feel that nothing less than unabated access to all areas of Downtown where delegates, the media, and anyone else within shouting distance is satisfactory for their planned rantings and theatrics.

The city will still process parade requests for the next month:

The city agreed in papers filed in federal court late Thursday to complete processing of pending requests for parades during the convention by June 19, and consider new requests thereafter. Competing requests are to be resolved through a public drawing.

The city said it won't charge a fee normally assessed to cover police overtime. The city is getting $50 million in federal dollars to cover police and emergency responders' extra effort convention week, Aug. 25-28.

The ACLU said in a press release that the city had stipulated the public demonstration zone, "is not an isolated zone by which the city will confine demonstrations. This public area is simply a designated location that will provide sight and sound access to the convention delegates, and is open to demonstrators, delegates, curious onlookers and others."

But not all the details on how the zone is to work have been released.

The ACLU and protester groups are trying to make sure Denver doesn't restrict demonstrators to a caged area, such as the one that infuriated First Amendment advocates at the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston.

Taxpayers are comping the police overtime for the parades/protests--how nice.

We're still awaiting the response of the ACLU and the protest groups involved.

Protest Parade Route In St. Paul To Be Contested, Denver's Route Still Unclear

It appears that even a specified protest parade route isn't enough for the moonbats protesting the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in September:

Denver officials have not yet rolled out the parade route that protesters will be able to take during the Democratic National Convention in August.

But they might find a harbinger of how contentious that bit of geography will be based on the experience of their counterparts in St. Paul, Minn.

St. Paul police have mapped out the long-awaited route that war protesters will be expected to use to march on the Republican National Convention on Sept. 1 - a 2-mile trek the city contends strikes the "difficult balance" between security and free speech rights.

While the route would enable marchers to pass within 300 feet of the convention site at the Xcel Energy Center, a dispute over it appears to be headed to court.

Attorneys and others representing a coalition of protesters argued that the route poses logistical challenges, and that the time frame set by police for the march ensures that the Republican Party has the entire evening's spotlight to itself.

U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen in Minnesota has scheduled a hearing today on a lawsuit filed by attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and National Lawyers Guild on behalf of protesters.

The protest groups in Denver have already filed their lawsuit with the help of the ACLU, and are still awaiting the sure-to-displease plans for a protest parade route in the Mile High City:

A similar court battle already is under way in Denver. The ACLU of Colorado sued Denver and the U.S. Secret Service two weeks ago to ensure that protesters will come within view and earshot of the Pepsi Center, site of the Democratic National Convention.

City officials have said they are waiting on the Secret Service to disclose security boundaries around the Pepsi Center before they can map the route.

"We're working hard on finalizing our parade route, but are not yet ready to release any details," said Denver spokeswoman Sue Cobb. "It's a complicated process."

The complications no doubt exacerbated not only by the protestors' many implicit threats to disrupt the convention, but also the Pepsi Center and Civic Center's proximity to main thoroughfares (Speer Boulevard, Colfax Avenue), not to mention the multiple Secret Service stipulations, as well as any other threats, specific or otherwise that will play a role not only in the eventual route's selection but in the timeline for that plan's release to the public, including Denver's many Downtown residents and businesses.

Regardless of the eventual arrangement, the inevitable clown assemblage of Recreate '68 and their allies (on speaking terms or not) will create quite a spectacle.

And we'll bring it to you, in all of its radical, moonbat, unhygienic, colorful glory.

U.S. District Court Judge Orders Denver, Secret Service To Respond In 10 Days To ACLU Lawsuit Over DNC Security Plans

The latest update on the ACLU's lawsuit against the City of Denver and the Secret Service to disclose Democratic National Convention security plans indicates a rather earnest attempt to speed up the process:

The ACLU filed its lawsuit Friday morning on behalf of 12 groups who are planning to hold parades and demonstrations during the convention. That afternoon, District Judge Marcia S. Krieger gave the city and federal officials 10 business days to respond. Judge Krieger has not yet set a court date, which would be the next step in the process.

"It's not clear how the judge is going to proceed," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado. "But the fact that the judge wanted a response right away indicates that the judge agrees that the case needs to be moved on a fast-track and that the concerns being articulated in our papers should get attention."
. . .
After the ACLU announced its lawsuit on Friday, Denver City Attorney David Fine released a statement indicating that no group has been denied a parade permit and that there will be a "vigorous exercise of free speech" during the convention in "many ways and in many places."

However, Silverstein noted that the ACLU's lawsuit is designed to force the city and Secret Service to disclose the specifics of the parade routes - including exactly where and where demonstrators and others will be allowed to gather.

"The people who are not delegates, the people who want to participate in demonstrations and protests to communicate their views shouldn't be treated like they're some kind of irritating meddling interlopers," Silverstein said. "Their participation is equally a part of our democratic life and the government actors--the city and the Secret Service--have to treat their right to peaceful expression with the same respect that the delegate's rights receive."

The city and federal officials have until May 16 to respond.

Not only will the expedited release of information benefit said protestors/moonbats, it will alleviate some of the growing unease about the specifics of the as yet undisclosed security blanket cited by Denver residents and commuters.

ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Denver, Secret Service For DNC Plans; Update--Denver's Protestor Arrest Plans Developing

. . . developing . . .

“If they announce it very close to August that, yes, you will have your permits, these groups are now shut out of hotels, shut out of flights, buses are booked to come to Denver and it’s impossible for them to logistically come here and exercise their First Amendment right. In our opinion, it’s a planned tactic”--Glenn Spagnuolo, Recreate '68

The Colorado ACLU and self-proclaimed non-self-promoter Glenn Spagnuolo of Recreate '68 have earned themselves a spot in the "paper of record":

Groups planning parades or protests at the Democratic National Convention filed a lawsuit here on Friday charging that the Secret Service and the City of Denver are threatening free speech — not because of tight security rules, but by the very lack of them.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court, says that delays in establishing legal parade routes, and unanswered questions about security arrangements around the convention center, are undermining efforts to plan for events when Democrats gather here from Aug. 25 to 28.

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, which is representing 12 groups in the lawsuit, said they had no choice but to turn to the court. With just four months until the convention, the groups want a judge to speed the scheduling and the issuing of rules governing activities outside the Pepsi Center.
. . .
The attorney for the City of Denver, David Fine, said in a statement that the city was not trying to thwart free speech.

“No one has been denied the right to protest,” Mr. Fine said. “In fact, you will see a vigorous exercise of free speech during the convention in many ways and in many places. That being said, we will review the plaintiffs’ papers and respond as necessary.”

The groups suing include several that plan to draw attention to various issues and causes, like the Troops Out Now Coalition, which opposes the war in Iraq. Another group, Citizens for Obama, wants to march on behalf of a favored presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

One member of the lawsuit coalition, Glenn Spagnuolo, from a group called Recreate 68, which is planning multiple demonstrations on issues including health care and the war, said at a news conference that he thought the delays had been deliberate.

Every passing week of uncertainty, Mr. Spagnuolo said, hobbles the efforts to recruit people to come to Denver and speak their minds.

“If they announce it very close to August that, yes, you will have your permits, these groups are now shut out of hotels, shut out of flights, buses are booked to come to Denver and it’s impossible for them to logistically come here and exercise their First Amendment right,” Mr. Spagnuolo said. “In our opinion, it’s a planned tactic.”

Yes, it's all about you, Glenn.

And that's Mr. to you unwashed rightwingers!

---

Drunkablog has more, including how Denver will be handling the potential arrests of thousands of DNC protestors while the ACLU continues to whine . . .

Because they really, really want to know:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado announced the filing of a lawsuit against the City of Denver and the U.S. Secret Service today in an effort to force them to disclose plans for an anticipated demonstration zone during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in August and to obtain more information about parade routes and permits during the event.

Plaintiffs in the case consist of a total of 12 groups that plan to hold actions during the convention, including Recreate 68, the American Friends Service Committee, the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, and Citizens for Obama.

"Our purpose is to vindicate the rights not only of the [plaintiffs], but everyone who wants some opportunity to communicate their views in conjunction with the Denver convention," said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the ACLU's Colorado chapter.

The ACLU has said that it is filing the suit over First Amendment violations that happened at the Democratic convention in Boston in 2004, where so-called "free-speech zones," which consisted of concrete barricades under a rail line, were set up outside the security perimeter of the convention site.

A Boston judge ruled that the zones were unconstitutional shortly before the 2004 convention but said that there was not enough time to change the plans. ACLU officials says they are trying to make sure the same thing doesn't happen this time around, which is why the organization is filing the suit at this time.

"No one will tell us what these restrictions are," Silverstein said. "We've been trying to find out for a year what these restrictions are."

The Rocky Mountain News has more:

"Ultimately, it's the federal courts that are sort of the last resort protectors of constitutional rights," Mark Silverstein, the ACLU's legal director, said today.

"It's been the federal courts that are the ones to say law enforcement has not struck the proper balance here between security concerns and citizens' fundamental First Amendment rights," he said.

Silverstein said the city is dragging its feet on processing applications for parade and park permits, affecting protesters' planning efforts, and that it has yet to reveal where the so-called free speech zone will be located.

The city says it's waiting for the Secret Service to determine the boundaries of a security perimeter, and the Secret Service says that decision may not happen until July, he said.

Colorado Weekend News Roundup--030808

What a kick--Rep. Douglas Bruce's prospective primary opponent picks up endorsements, plans to raise $50000 to unseat the unpopular legislator, and then proceeds to win top-line designation on August's primary ballot, 57-43%, in the El Paso County General Assembly.

Just in time for the Democrat National Convention--ACLU lawsuit changes rules for rallies and protests at the Colorado state Capitol.

Speaking of the DNC--The City of Denver and Mayor "Teflon" John Hickenlooper plan "democracy" film contest--"cinemocracy"--in honor of the Democrats' August convention and for those who aren't able to get into the Pepsi Center. Also coming will be "Dialogue City," "a participatory arts festival to bring people downtown."

DIA Wi-Fi keeps lid on "provocative" content--and by provocative we mean almost everything, including the magazines available from the airport vendors.

Outgoing CU President Hank Brown points out the painfully--yet understatedly--obvious: CU perceived as aloof by Colorado residents, with a tendency toward looking "inwardly".

Despite being the GOP nominee and gaining the endorsement of Colorado's Republican heavyweights, John McCain will have an uphill battle convincing some Colorado conservatives not to sit on their hands come November.

Fort Collins' "Holiday Task Force" Recommendations Draw Community Ire

Displays like this could get the axe for being "too Christmas-y"

The inclusive, multicultural/diversity, and bureaucratic approach to the holidays taken up by Fort Collins has led to the ridiculous proposals put forth last week by the 17-member "holiday task force" designated to eliminate Christmas make the city's displays more "educational", drawing the ire of local residents:

"On the display you'll see symbols and recognition and descriptions of all the various traditions that are celebrated here in Fort Collins," said Seth Anthony, a spokesperson for the task force, which included representatives from a variety of secular and religious groups.

What appears to be attracting controversy is another recommendation that would not allow colored lights and other symbols associated with Christmas in other outside public areas.

"The council's intent was to be positive, be expansive, to be more inclusive. I'm not sure why we would want to restrict any aspect of what has been years and years of traditional holiday displays," said Fort Collins Mayor Doug Hutchinson, who has received angry calls from many people, some of whom claim the city is stealing Christmas.

However, those with the task force say its proposal is appropriate.

"We have to be careful that the displays that we have not endorse any particular religion. Putting things in a multicultural context, or an educational context really helps us be very safely on the good side of the First Amendment," said Anthony, who is an ACLU member.

That said, Anthony adds Christmas would not be absent from Fort Collins if the recommendations were to pass. He says they would not prohibit Christmas trees or decorations inside public buildings and businesses would still throw up all sorts of Christmas displays.

I'm sure they'll take care of those glaring omissions next year.

The flimsy reasoning continues:

Though the recommendation's language does not address Christmas trees by name, the consensus among task force members was that Christmas trees would not fall within its recommendations, said Seth Anthony, spokesman for the task force.

"Some symbols, even though the Supreme Court has declared that in many contexts they are secular symbols, often still send a message to some members of the community that they and their traditions are not values and not wanted. We don't want to send that message," Anthony said.

But the Fort Collins museum's display of white lights in trees on its grounds - including an evergreen tree lighted as part of the Downtown Business Association's Community Holiday Tree lighting and Carolfest, could continue under the new recommendation, he said.

The task force also will recommend that the Fort Collins Museum develop a multicultural display of religious and cultural symbols or objects associated with a variety of winter holidays such as Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and Diwali. Such a display could include such objects as a crèche with a star overhead, a menorah or a Kwanzaa kenora, to name a few.

The final decision for what is included in the display, which will likely be outdoors beginning in 2008, would rest with museum staff, Anthony said.

Because the Downtown Development Authority owns Old Town Square, any holiday display policies approved by council would not apply there.

"I expect criticism from people who feel like we are taking Christmas away. And I expect we will get criticism from people who think educational display endorses religions," Anthony said. "(But) to the extent we can, recognizing that offending no one will be impossible, we want to be inclusive."

For anti-Christmas moonbats, excluding Christmas trees = being more inclusive. Nuance. So is the inclusion of Anthony, the ACLU member. How many times were lawsuits mentioned before the rest of the task force finally conceded?

The negative feedback to the mayor of Fort Collins remains strong:

Mayor Doug Hutchinson said he was pleased with the proposal that focused on the museum but had questions about other proposals that could limit decorations on the exterior of most city buildings.

Said Hutchinson: "I have had an ocean of input. People are saying that the issue is not religious. It's about a long-standing tradition. The basic intent (of the council) was not to destroy anything. When you do away with Christmas trees, when you are doing away with a tradition that people in Fort Collins hold dear; that is the nerve that was touched."

The holiday task force believes that a museum would provide the proper venue for the dangerous religious symbols:

The Fort Collins Museum would be the focal point of a multicultural winter holiday display under recommendations released Tuesday by a city task force.

In a 10-page document, the Holiday Display Task Force outlined a proposal for an educational, multicultural display outside the museum representing a variety of religious and nonreligious celebrations that take place between Nov. 1 and Jan. 30.

"What the task force tried to accomplish was to craft holiday displays to celebrate our commonality and also to recognize the diversity of winter holidays celebrated by members of the community and to create a festive atmosphere during the winter season," said Seth Anthony, one of the spokesmen for the task force.

Museum staff would design the display. The task force's document included illustrations of symbols as examples of what could be included in the display, including a crèche with a star above, a menorah, a Yule log and a snowflake, among others.

Committee approved "festive atmosphere" to be exact. And just so the religiosity doesn't get out of hand, they included "illustrations" of the permitted symbols. Apparently the Fort Collins Museum staff is either too stupid to know what should belong in a holiday display, or just simply can't be trusted to make their own decisions.

Perhaps another wing could be added to the museum showcasing rights and traditions once enjoyed by Americans before the onset of malignant moonbattery.

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 Expects To Be Fired; CU Students Cheer End Of Saga

Ward Churchill complains that the decision was preordained, and promises to sue:

Churchill and his attorney describe the investigations and upcoming hearing as a charade and say they are convinced the majority of regents will vote for dismissal. The tenured professor said he has not spoken with the regents about the upcoming hearing but that the research-misconduct allegations were "concocted precisely for the purpose of providing a pretext for the regents to do what they were all set to do in the first place."

"I expect to be fired," Churchill said in an e-mail to the Camera on Thursday. "That's been ordained since the outset. ... So, they're going to do what they've wanted to do all along. Then it's my turn."

CU has released a rough timeline of Tuesday's festivities:

8 a.m.: The Board of Regents will meet in public in the University Memorial Center to announce it will go into executive session, behind closed doors.

8:15 a.m. until at least 4 p.m.: In private, regents will be briefed by the board's attorneys before holding a hearing.

The hearing will include arguments from Churchill and his attorney; university counsel; and the counsel representing CU's Privilege and Tenure Committee. Each party will have a set amount of time to present its case to the board. Regents can ask questions, but no new evidence can be presented.

The regents will then deliberate.

4 p.m. or later: Regents will meet again in public session in the UMC's Glenn Miller Ballroom to vote on CU President Hank Brown's recommendation that Churchill be fired.

Video of the meeting will be streamed online at www.cu.edu.

After the meeting: Brown and Regent Pat Hayes, chairwoman of the board, will hold a news conference in UMC Room 235. Media credentials are required, but the conference will also be streamed online.

CU said Thursday that an open microphone will be available at the end of the day for anybody who wants to express "their personal opinions on topics related to the events of the day."

An open mic? That should produce some, shall we say, spirited commentary.

One student summarized just about everyone's feelings:

"I'm absolutely ready for this to be done."

We are too--but we seriously doubt we will see Churchill ride off into the sunset anytime soon.

Previously:
Don't Fire Ward Churchill Says ACLU

Don't Fire Ward Churchill Says ACLU

Witch hunt or academic misconduct? The ACLU begs for Ward to be set free, CU defends the findings of multiple committees:

"I think that the protection of the First Amendment rights is vital in the university and in the general public," said Cathy Hazouri, executive director of ACLU of Colorado.

The letter, signed by Hazouri and Anthony Romero, ACLU executive director, was delivered to the regent’s office today. Calls for Churchill’s termination were the result of his expression of unpopular views, not because of the quality of his scholarship, the letter said.

"The investigation of professor Churchill’s scholarship cannot be separated from the indefensible lynch-mob furor that generated the initial calls for his termination," the letter said.

Churchill caused a furor when he wrote an essay comparing some Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi leader, but the university has said such comments are protected speech and that Churchill’s problems stem from findings that he committed plagiarism and research misconduct.

Today, CU spokeswoman Michele McKinney said she could not speak on behalf of the regents in regards to the ACLU letter.

"More than 25 fully tenured faculty members from CU and other institutions served on three panels and unanimously determined that Professor Churchill engaged in acts of research misconduct," she said. "The university has an obligation to review such findings and determine what, if any, sanction is warranted."

How dare anyone use patriarchal, imperialistic, racist sanctions against Ward Churchill?

Someone please pass the Kool-Aid.

**Update--
PirateBallerina has the whole press release--and it seems the ACLU is drinking the same Kook-Aid as Churchill's most ardent (and deranged) supporters.