Churchill Billed For Legal Expenses, May Top $50K

Heh--may be as high as $50K.

Pravda takes up Churchill's cause.

Big post-decision link roundup at PirateBallerina.

Jury Leaning Toward Churchill?

Developing . . . verdict reached:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Naves read his reply to the jury.

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Update 2: Jury receives case:

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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


Excellent cartoon from Face the State.

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

Churchill receives the support of terrorist-sympathizer Lynne Stewart.

March 31--Defense concludes:

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

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

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

March 30--Regents admit Churchill essay sparked probe:

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

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

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

"Given a fair chance":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 25--Churchill's attorney rests case

March 24--Churchill calls critics "pathetic":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Denver Post Churchill blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With a slight pause, Yellow Bird said yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"He just cheated," he told the jury.

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

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

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

Churchill Trialpalooza Week 1 Recap, Week 2 Preview

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

Tuesday March 10--"Ordeal by trial"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He asked the jury to make his client whole again.

Yeah, good luck with that.

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

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

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

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

More to come this afternoon.

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

More at Drunkablog and PirateBallerina.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break for lunch, resume at 1:30pm.

Churchill Trialpalooza Roundup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CU Boulder Proceeds With Event Featuring William Ayers And Ward Churchill Despite Non-Payment Of Security Fees

**Update--full video of Ayers' speech courtesy of People's Press Collective:



Drunkablog has a recap and pics, updates on Ward Churchill's lawsuit, and PirateBallerina has an excellent roundup of the "slew" of Churchill/Ayers-palooza last night in Boulder.



The William Ayers/Ward Churchill farce event at CU Boulder--"Forbidden Education and the Rise of Neo-McCarthyism" will proceed with the security required for the event.

The student groups hosting the Weather Undergrounder William Ayers and ex-professor Ward Churchill are griping about the security costs, and insist that the speakers are the reason for the "extra" charges:

Students for True Academic Freedom, which is sponsoring the event, said CU officials are unfairly imposing a $3,000 security fee to try to stop the event from happening.

The fee would cover the cost of having campus police at the engagement.

"The fees are exorbitant," said Aaron Smith, an organizer with the group. Smith said his group has already arranged for student security and neither Ayers nor Churchill has requested extra security.

"There's an effort to punish us financially, our student group specifically, because of the nature of who we're bringing out," said another organizer, Sean Daly.

This is patently absurd and incorrect.

I attended CU Boulder from 1997-2001 and for a few years after in graduate school, and the speakers we brought out through College Republicans often had security requirements. This was especially true when we hosted an event with NRA President Charlton Heston in March of 2000, less than a year after the Columbine High School shooting. There were anti-gun protesters in large numbers, as well as a small contingent of gun owners who thought the NRA was too moderate. There was a heightened sense of emotion surrounding the gun control issue in the late '90s, especially in Colorado following the Columbine shooting. We needed the security.

CU's response:

CU Boulder spokesman Bronson Hilliard said the decision to add the extra security fee was based on logistics, not content.

"It's got nothing to do with any difference of opinion we would have with Mr. Churchill or anyone else," Hilliard said. "It has to do with a baseline assessment of the security needs we have to make that a safe evening for everyone in the audience and for these speakers themselves."

Hilliard said the security fee is in line with what student groups typically pay for high-profile events featuring well-known speakers.

Last summer Hilliard said the campus College Republicans paid $4,800 in security fees related to an event featuring two men who claimed to be former members of the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

"We're treating them exactly the same as we've treated every other student organization. There's absolutely nothing here on our part that has anything to do with the content of the program that evening,” said Hilliard.

Fairness, however, is not in the student groups' vocabulary.

Whining about oppression, obviously, is:

But Daly and Smith said their group has invited the exact same speakers to CU in the past and did not have to pay for additional security.

"Bill Ayers and Derrick Jensen and Ward Churchill have never had to pay for that kind of security cost," Daly said.

University officials said things have changed since then.

Last year, during the presidential campaign, Ayers became a household name when he was labeled an "unrepentant terrorist" who sat on an education board with Barack Obama. Since then, he has received death threats.

Smith and Daly acknowledge said if university officials feel that extra security is needed, they should pay for it.

But Hilliard said waiving the fee or having the university pay it, would set a bad precedent.

"No student organization in the history of the university has ever refused to pay and bear their share of the burden for security costs," he said.

And they won't go down without a fight:

But that is exactly what Students for True Academic Freedom plan to do and they said they will not shy away from a legal battle if the university insists that they pay.

"We'll be seeing CU in court," said Daly.

The event is expected to go forward with full security on Thursday, March 5, at 7 p.m. in the UMC Glenn Miller Ballroom.

CU officials said the students will be permitted to pay the security fee after the event and if they do not, it may go to a collection agency.

Speaking of court, Ward's lawsuit jury selection began today.

Drunkablog and People's Press Collective will be there to cover the event and provide after action reports (photos, audio--courtesy of Drunkablog's fine efforts)--stay tuned for updates.

Bonus: Behold the "free speech cage" at CU Boulder in advance of this intellectual endeavor.

Fmr. Gov. Bill Owens' Frosty Encounter With Ex-Professor Ward Churchill

"In retirement, he's starting to look a lot like Michael Moore . . . Ward Churchill is a plagiarist and a fraud and, regrettably, we continue to pay for his deception"--Former Gov. Bill Owens on ex-CU professor Ward Churchill

Owens commented on being deposed (audio courtesy of Complete Colorado) for Churchill's lawsuit on the Caplis and Silverman show--including a funny encounter with the man himself (h/t Drunkablog):

The deposition took place in the office of Churchill's attorney, David Lane. Owens, who left office in January 2007 and now is a businessman, was represented by the attorney general's office.

For his part Friday, Churchill refused to shake Owens' hand.

So Owens took a verbal jab: "I said, 'Come on, you're a big guy.'"

Lane said later: "I hope the governor's feelings weren't too hurt."

And apparently, by "big guy" Owens meant Michael Moore.

Churchill's response?

*crickets chirping*

Owens concluded:

Churchill and Lane claimed the firing was in retaliation for exercising his constitutional right to free speech.

"I very directly told David Lane that I also had a First Amendment right to speak on the subject, and I reflected what a vast majority of Coloradans were saying," Owens said.

"Unfortunately for David Lane, his client had a clear pattern of lying for virtually his entire academic career. That's why he was fired.

"I believe the jury will reject Churchill's (claims.)"

Drunkablog, Pirate Ballerina and SP will have extensive coverage of the Churchill lawsuit come next month.

In the meantime, prepare for William Ayers' defense of Churchill next month at CU.

William Ayers To Defend Ward Churchill At CU In March Ahead Of Ex-Professor's Lawsuit

Thankfully, Drunkablog was on top of this over a week ago:

Come and hear the shocking truths behind the right-wing attacks on Churchill. Hear what they don’t want you to know!

Date: Thursday, March 5, 2009
Time: 6:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: Glenn Miller Ballroom, at CU Boulder inside the UMC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Obama At CU--Professors Cancel Classes For Visit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Austin describes himself as a “critical Obama supporter.”

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

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

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

CU Boulder's "Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy"

It'll never happen.

Drunkablog has more.

If it does, it will most likely be a milquetoast "conservative" or not even a conservative at all.

One endowed chair for conservative thought does not intellectual diversity make.

Michelle Malkin is similarly not impressed.

CU Diversity Thugs Oppose Ex-Terrorist Speakers At "Why We Want To Kill You"

Last week we brought you news of an upcoming CU College Republicans event--"Why We Want To Kill You"--Ex-Terrorists Walid Shoebat And Kamel Saleem At CU-Boulder.

CU's resident "diversity groups" are now peddling the line that the speakers "will spread hateful, anti-Islamic messages":

Two self-labeled terrorists-turned-peace activists will speak next week on the University of Colorado campus -- and some students, in anticipation of the visit, say they fear the paid guests will spread hateful, anti-Islamic messages.

The Cultural Events Board, which doles out money to student groups to pay for speakers, granted the College Republicans' request to fund the controversial, $10,000 campus talk: "Why We Want to Kill You."

Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem — former Islamic terrorists who are popular guests in the college-speaking circuit and on conservative talk shows — will speak at 7 p.m. April 29 in the Glenn Miller Ballroom on CU’s campus.

The speakers say they will “share their personal experiences and stress the dangers that the Western world faces today, as Islamic Fundamentalism grows with fervor around the globe.”

Shoebat said college campuses are fertile recruiting grounds for the radical Islamic movement.

In advance of the meeting, an e-mail circulated Monday among CU student-diversity groups and the Muslim Student Association urging students to research the speakers and expose them, saying Shoebat is a “hateful liar” and classifying the event as “completely anti-Islam.”

Is this just frustration at the lack of attention with other events at CU this week, as well as a desire to shut down down any speech that might offend or offer a critique of Islam?

The Muslim Student Association this week is hosting an Islamic Awareness Week, with student panels and other events.

Shoebat said his speaking engagements are often met with hecklers and demonstrators, but he said college students are getting a one-sided view on the war on terror and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Criticizing a religion is not racism,” he said in a telephone interview Monday. “Critiquing a religion is a form of speech. If people cannot critique religion in this country, then we are beginning to see a downfall.”

Will there be protests? Of course!

Kelly Brewer El-Yacoubi, a member of CU’s Muslim Student Association, said the group doesn’t have a planned protest but encourages students to research the speakers.

“MSA is not a political organization in nature, as compared to other student groups, and we believe in a message of peace,” she said. “We have positive events. We play offense rather than defense.”

She said she realizes that some campus events are meant to provoke students.

“We really value the equality of people, and if there’s a racist event, we would never support it,” she said.

Repeat after me, Islam is not a race.

Whenever moonbat speakers are invited to CU, it is praised as promoting "diversity" and bringing "alternative viewpoints" to the campus. If conservatives/Republicans bring out a speaker, then it is time to review the funding process!

CU students pay about $20 a year to two organizations — the Cultural Events Board and Distinguished Speakers Board — that bring in speakers. Together, that amounts to less than 3 percent of the annual, mandatory $670 student-activity fee package.

Bronson Hilliard, spokesman for CU, said the administration does not “micro-manage the speakers list that comes forward from our student groups.”

A review this school year, conducted by CU’s Internal Audit Office at the regents’ request and agreed upon by student leaders, found that the way the student union funds its guest speakers is in line with university rules, and the paid guests represent a diversity of viewpoints. But there were no records for unfunded events, and auditors recommended the student leaders strengthen their compliance by documenting denied proposals.

In the past ten years at CU, conservative groups including the CUGOP have brought out speakers like Charlton Heston and Ann Coulter. The innumerable moonbats, often flying below the radar of visibility (or credibility, for that matter) have included Howard Dean and Angela Davis.

But it is the speaker fees for conservative groups that not only call into question the speaker funding process, but also boldly proclaim the amount ($10,000) that the forced speaker tax has provided for this event alone. A quick scan of the remaining speakers invited by the intellectual whizzes at the Cultural Events Board will not only reveal an ideological imbalance of immense proportions, but also the lack of judgment on the part of the student legislators and the failure of CEB itself for not recruiting quality speakers to promote "alternative viewpoints" at CU.

Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement To Deploy Puppets, Drums, And Middle Fingers Against Madeleine Albright

This should be ugly:

Madeleine Albright, the patron saint of UN enforced starvation, will be speaking at the “University” of Kolorado- Boulder on April 16th. RAIM-Denver is leading the charge in opposing this event:

On April 16th, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright will be speaking at the University of Colorado- Boulder. Under Bill Clinton, Albright championed the policy of UN enforced starvation upon the nation of Iraq. On national television she later admitted that the United States, through UN sanctions, killed half a million Iraqi children. In her own words such a cost in human life was, “worth it.”

Coming at a time when activists will shortly be protesting the Democratic National Convention, this appearance by Albright is a excellent opportunity to point out the destructive imperialistic nature of the Democrats.

We call on local activists to mount a protest of this engagement, both as a militant warm-up for the DNC and to let Madeleine Albright and similar war criminals know that their presence in the Denver/Boulder area is opposed. Show up pissed off and ready to be heard. This appearance by Madeleine Albright will not go unchallenged.

When: April 16th, 6:00 pm

Where: Main entrance to the Coors Event Center, 1111 Broadway St., Boulder

Bring signs, puppets, drums, extended middle fingers-whatever you need to make your point.

Why don't they ever bring, you know, intelligence, circumspection, or logic?

Showing up "pissed off and ready to be heard" doesn't really accomplish much. If they want to "increase awareness" why don't they try something a little less theatrical and a little more informative? (wait, I shouldn't be helping them . . .)

Bring on the puppets!

Conference On World Affairs: Monday Recap; Fmr. US Ambassador To Pakistan--Muslims' Dislike Of United States Is Our Fault

Both the Rocky Mountain News and the Boulder Daily Camera sent out some intrepid reporters to "blog" the day's events, no doubt inoculated against boredom with copious amounts of caffeine in order to withstand the intellectual onslaught that is the annual CU-Boulder "think fest." The CWA is offering live webcasts from two of the venues, featuring some of the key panels and topics (these feeds will resume tomorrow morning).

No bombshells were revealed today, but blame, however, made an early appearance.

From today's keynote speech--U.S.-Mideast Relations: The Cost of a Damaged Dialogue (or, how it is all really our fault that Islamic jihadists hate us):

Wendy J. Chamberlin, president of the Middle East Institute, is not focusing on the Israel-Palestinian conflict or the war in Iraq in her speech today.

Instead, she is speaking on a broader but no less challenging subject: understanding how mainstream Muslims perceive the United States.

She began by using polls and statistics to paint a picture for the audience of the mainstream Muslim community, which, according to her, admires our civil freedoms, education and entrepreneurship.

On the other hand, Chamberlin said that Muslims hold a strikingly low opinion of the United States, with only 10 percent saying the United States is a trustworthy ally.

The second half of Chamberlin's speech attempted to explain the contradiction, asking why the majority of Muslims share our values but don't like us.

"The explanations are in our actions and foreign policy," Chamberlin said.

She pointed to several contributing factors in damaging the dialogue between the US and the Middle East including:

— The high presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil

— The treatment of Muslims at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo

— Racial profiling in the U.S. after 9/11

— A foreign policy that does not accept democratically elected leaders who hold certain views

— Rhetoric such as the "War on Terror" and "You're either with us, or against us"

— A media that focuses on the violent, extremist minority

Of course, this explains nothing--especially since most of these factors, even taken at their most negative--occurred after 9/11.

So what made them hate us before? And why does asking questions about the violence of Islam result in threats of violence from Islam?

Kind of disappointing from the former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, but not surprising given the venue.

Moonbat Convergence: CU-Boulder's Conference On World Affairs; Live Video Feed Available

**Update 2--live video streaming available from Macky Auditorium and the UMC Center Ballroom:

Macky:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwamacky.mov
Macky Audio Only:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwamackyaudio.mov

Macky1:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwa2008macky1.mov
Macky1 Audio Only:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwa2008macky1audio.mov

UMC Center Ballroom (SkyCam):
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwa2008UMC1.mov
UMC Center Ballroom Audio Only:
http://www.colorado.edu/cwa/live/cwa2008UMC1audio.mov

**Update--M*A*S*H star Mike Farrell:

Mike Farrell -- an actor turned anti-war activist and humanitarian -- will speak on several panels addressing war and violence during his first trip to the University of Colorado's Conference on World Affairs. The 60th annual conference begins today.

"People don't get a full discussionof the issues anymore," Farrell said. "Conferences like this offer an opportunity for them to get in on a different point of view."

There will certainly be a great deal of viewpoints at the conference from being adamantly against the war to zealously opposing it, and all viewpoints in between.

---

Every spring for the last 60 years, moonbats from around the world have gathered at CU-Boulder's Conference on World Affairs to hold forth on a variety of subjects--from art to science to politics and even philosophy.

This year will be no different, as the following schedule "highlights" reveal. These represent less than a third of the overall schedule, and include some of the most clearly out-in-left-field panels topics and panelists. Even the most innocuous subject matter devolves into some sort of anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, America-bashing diatribe by the panelists themselves--heaped upon by the indoctrinated students (Ward Churchill produced some of the best and the brightest!) and Boulder hippies that comprise the audience, all while maintaining the appearance of intellectual earnestness under the guise of university sanction. This is Recreate 68's target audience, and chief recruiting station for Denver's Democratic National Convention.

Just try saying anything positive about America. Or capitalism. You may just be lucky and escape the room intact. Be prepared for copious name-calling (whenever they don't understand or can't refute your argument) and hissing. Lots of hissing.

So, who'll be attending? Among the most prominent this year, activists Jello Biafra and Mike Farrell (M*A*S*H):

Best known for his eight years on M*A*S*H and five seasons on Providence, Mike Farrell is also a writer, director, producer, and author of a memoir, Just Call Me Mike: A Journey to Actor and Activist.

Beyond his prolific work in the entertainment industry, Farrell has traveled the world for the last 25+ years as part of prominent international human rights and peace delegations. Destinations have included El Salvador, Nicaragua, USSR, Paraguay, Chile, Israel, the Occupied Territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Czechoslovakia, Somalia, Kenya, Croatia, Bosnia, Cuba, Rwanda, Zaire, Tanzania, Costa Rica, and Honduras. This work led to his helping establish the Southern California Committee of Human Rights Watch, where he served as co-chair until 2004. His opposition to the war in Iraq resulted in his having co-founded Artists United to Win Without War.

A life-long opponent of the death penalty, Farrell has “seen too many death rows.” President of the board of Death Penalty Focus since 1994, he speaks, debates, writes extensively, and coordinates campaigns for individuals across the country facing execution. He is currently involved in an international effort to establish a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.

That included convicted murderer, "Tookie" Williams.

Who else will be there?

Columnists from The Guardian. A former U.S. Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth. And tons of activists. Heck, you can't even get a speaking gig at this event without the word "activist" somewhere in your resume. The only Republicans or conservatives present (CU President Bruce Benson, former Congressman Bob Beauprez) have been allowed to moderate a panel or two. Don't be surprised if they become the focus of the panel's ire, and get trashed in the process.

This is the People's Republic of Boulder, after all.

Here are some highlights to peruse (full list of events by day//full list of speakers):

Monday, April 7:
1102 Bush Legacy: Too Early to Tell, Too Late to Matter
1103 Teste Women: Why We Fear Women in Power
1104 America's Reliance on Immigrant Workers
1105 Privatizing War: Blackwater, et al.
1500A PLENARY The New "New International Economic Order"
1504 College Athlete = Indentured Servants
1601 The Orgy of Corporate Greed
1602 Surviving Contact with Extraterrestrials--[so you too can exact revenge at the end of a movie, Independence Day-style]
1701 RADIO BROADCAST Metro - Cuba After "W" and Raúl
1702 Resistance to America's Cultural Colonization
1703 The Candidates on Iraq: The Silence is Deafening
1802 LIVE BROADCAST Air America The Rachel Maddow Show
1804A PLENARY Keep Your Grubby Mitts Off My Constitution

Tuesday, April 8:
2103 The EU: Dissing American Dominance
2106 Do You Believe in Magic?
2201 The Death Penalty on Trial
2304 Poverty American-Style
2402 Censorship: Who, How & Why
2403 Science: Who's Afraid of the Future
2605 Torture: When the Unthinkable Becomes Acceptable
2606A AL SMITH MEMORIAL PLENARY Exploring Dystopia: Nuclear Holocaust
2701 2008 Election: Don't Screw This Up, America
2702 Exporting Cookie-Cutter Democracy
2706 Waging Peace--[militantly, of course]
2802 Separation of Art and State

Wednesday, April 9:
3000 LIVE BROADCAST A Public Affair - The Obama Phenomenon: A Post-Racist America?
3101 Latin America: Viva Change!--[Guaranteed to be a Che t-shirt, somewhere in the room]
3104 Men, Sex and Power
3105 Republicans: It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To
3108 The Impact of the Religious Right
3202 Iraq: We'll Pull Out in Time. Honest.
3203 Mythologizing the Past: FDR, JFK, MLK, Reagan
3303 When Kids Go to Jail
3505 Bench the Eagle: The End of the American Empire
3506 Global Warming Is Eating Up Our Food Supply
3600A PLENARY wwjd (What would Jello do?): Magic Solutions to All the World's Problems
3705 The Real Reasons Iran Is the Next Target
3801 Three Billion Reason$ for Campaign Finance Reform
3805 Bill O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch Can SoundByte Me
3807 North Korea: Small Place, Big Noise

Thursday, April 10:
4200A MOLLY IVINS FREEDOM FIGHTIN' MEMORIAL PLENARY Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran
4201 Hollywood: Setting or Reflecting American Values--[After yet another failure of an anti-war movie, I'm guessing neither]
4404 Hip Hoppers, Beatboxers and Punk Rockers: A Battle Cry for Social Change
4502 Post-Petroleum Economics
4503 Dude! Where's My Constitution!
4604 Film and the Aesthetics of Brutality
4702 National Service Should Be Mandated--[Bringing back the draft, moonbat style]
4704 Feminism: The New F Word

Friday, April 11:
5102 Energy Conservation is a Waste of Energy
5103 Every Joke Is a Small Revolution
5104 It's the End of the World as We Know It
5105 A Woman's Right to Shoes
5106 Democrats: It's My Party and I'll Cry if I Want To
5107 Gun Violence: The Madness Affecting America
5201 If the Rest of the World Could Vote for U.S. President...
5303 American Education: A Rising Tide of Mediocrity
5304 Advice for the Next President
5307 Evangelical Atheism
5403 Green Goes Nuclear
5501 Ban Tobacco, Legalize Marijuana
5502 Fundamentalism and World Conflicts--[how much you wanna bet this panel completely ignores Islam, or equates it to rabid Christian fundamentalists?]
5504 Death to Innovation: Patents and Copyrights
5507 Third Party Spoilers

If you've got some time, head up to Boulder for a little "reeducation."

But don't say I didn't warn you.

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.

Max Karson: CU Boulder A "Racist Hell-Hole", His Moonbat Attempt To Start Dialogue On Race Backfires

Max Karson continues to fan the flames of the controversy of his own making, and the issue is not free speech, but racism:

A statement posted on the student newspaper's Web site Wednesday singled out Karson as the only person suspended from contributing to the online-only newspaper's content. But CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard on Thursday said all of the regular opinion-writing staff will be reassigned to other duties while changes are made.

"Max has been an editorial page assistant editor, and all of the duties of all of the editorial page editors have been suspended because the editorial page itself at the Campus Press has been suspended pending a restructuring and re-envisioning of what they're going to do with it," Hilliard said.
. . .
However, his letter to the Camera described his contempt for the opposition to him and the Campus Press.

"Sometimes it's necessary to offend in order to provoke thought about difficult subjects," Karson wrote. "For example, in my 'Asians' piece, I poked fun at Asian stereotypes for the purpose of mocking racist white people who never bother to understand or even consider Asian cultures and race relations at the University of Colorado.

So Karson is really a moonbat whose attempt to stir up a conflagration about race initially succeeded, but ultimately backfired when the object of the opposition became his own rather pathetic attempt at satire and not the "institutional racism" that, according to Karson, supposedly permeates CU Boulder:

I went to the rally full of excitement because I thought that the public conversation was going to move forward to the subject of racial tension at CU -- a subject that is consistently ignored by the general public, school officials and the media. But as the event organizers got up and gave their speeches, I felt my insides sink.

Every single speech was focused on my writing. They called it racist, insisted that it was not satire, and demanded that we reject hate speech as a community. The opportunity to bring new stories and ideas to the conversation was wasted on an hour of angry protests against my jokes ridiculing Asian stereotypes.

And that's what I can't stand. I can't stand that people would rather gossip about me than tell their own stories about racism. I can't stand that the people who experience racism every day would rather waste their energy on demanding the suppression of clearly protected speech instead of adding their own speech to the mix. I can't stand that our student leaders are simply giving more ammo to the angry conservatives who claim that liberals always suppress dissenting speech.

The sad irony of their CU-sanctioned protest was succinctly put into words by David Chiu: "We as a community seek the immediate resignation of the Campus Press staff and university faculty responsible for the publication of these articles. We do not want a scapegoat offered up for sacrifice to meet the demands of an infuriated public."

Yes, David, you do want a scapegoat. I stood there and watched the attending university officials smile and nod while you spoke. Do you know why they were smiling? Because even though they're the ones in charge of the racist hell-hole we call CU, you still managed to blame the hateful attitudes of thousands of people on a dorky, smart-mouthed kid with authority problems.

And your solution, of course, is the same as theirs. You think that if you shut me up, you'll be one step closer to the "hate-free environment" you dream of. It reminds me of when university officials apologize for my piece instead of apologizing for the fact that minority students don't feel safe at their school, and when the CU Student Union passed a self-aggrandizing resolution to condemn racist writing instead of encouraging public dialogue on the subject.

Racism has been driven underground and institutionalized over the past several decades. The days of hood-wearing and cross-burning, at least in Boulder, are over. Now racism lives in policies and micro-messages such as looks, remarks, and avoidance.

If you really want to fight racism, you have to allow people to express it, and then you have to engage it, not stomp it back into invisibility. No matter how much it hurts us, open dialogue is the answer.

My job as a journalist is to create that open dialogue by amplifying the voices of students -- even students with racist or other hateful ideas that I disagree with. Your job as an activist is to engage those ideas with community dialogue, and if you find them hurtful or upsetting, to try to change the minds of the people who espouse them.

Perhaps Karson should work on coordinating his "journalistic" efforts with those of the "activists" on campus. Not only is Karson's conception of what a journalist's responsibilities should be (no doubt instilled by the stellar CU School of Journalism) off-base, his own estimation of his writing abilities as a critical thinker and dialogue-starter are poorly served by whining self-indulgence and poorly constructed shock-jock bloviations. Given Karson's high opinion of himself, it is a surprise that he didn't figure on his implicit allies--the professionally outraged--not picking up on his "brilliant" plan and making him the focus of their efforts.

Karson won't be the first moonbat who believed that manufacturing and faking a racist incident--in this case poorly masked as "satire"--to "start a dialogue" would be a good idea. Sadly, he won't be the last.