Ward Churchill 1, War Whores 0

[Master of Ossus]

Did you even read the article? It wasn't just that the governor was angry about the comments, he threatened to cut off funds from the school if they didn't get rid of Churchill. He went on Fox Noise and ginned up hate mail and death threats against the university that HE was in charge of. He made it clear he wanted Churchill gone, was willing to attack and de-fund the school BEFORE any investigation into whether Churchill engaged in academic misconduct. Churchill sued and won -rightfully so.

I didn't ask about that: I asked what you think should happen to this guy. He committed gross acts of academic misconduct. You think he should just be given his job back?

I justify this on the grounds that law trumps academic rules. Legal precedent is pretty clear on this subject: agents of the government are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions as a way of retaliating against people exercising their rights.

And you think that the University has to just sit back and watch as someone commits gross academic misconduct while sitting on their faculty and receiving their paychecks because politicians don't like the guy?

In fact, the First Amendment rule, as set forth in Wayte v. U.S., 470 U.S. 598 (1985), is:

"Selectivity in the enforcement of criminal laws is . . . subject to constitutional constraints." In particular, the decision to prosecute may not be "'deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification,'" including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights [such as free speech].

Even prosecution of people who are guilty of a nonspeech crime might thus violate the First Amendment if the government deliberately selected them for prosecution because of their constitutionally protected expression (though I should note that this is a very tough claim to prove).

It's not that tough when the governor is on the Falafel Factor, bragging about how he's going to get rid of Churchill for his essay.

No wonder you treat gross academic misconduct as being immaterial for people in academic positions: your own intellectual dishonesty and shrill screeching over what you perceive as unfairness blinds you to the totally obvious to the point where you actually cite that Volokh quote as being pertinent here!

Not only was Churchill never prosecuted (and Volokh is talking about "selective enforcement of criminal laws" [emphasis added]), but there is no argument that can turn attacking Churchill for his behavior into an "arbitrary classification" akin to race and religion for purposes of the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to say or do whatever you want without personal or professional consequences, and I think you're writing him a free pass for his professional misconduct too quickly.

Two reasons:

1) People who voted for this putz have no reason to complain. They elected a witch hunter and are no doubt going to whine about having to pay for it. Tough shit. Voting for assholes has its consequences.

2) If Churchill had wanted to, he could have claimed all kinds of damages (damage to his reputation, emotional distress, lost income, etc), but didn't. He only asked for reinstatement or barring that, punitive measures if the state refuses.

The point being, he's not the one screwing the taxpayers.

Churchill claiming for damages, there, would've been a legal joke. I don't attribute it to him not trying to hurt taxpayers, but rather to a reasonable legal assessment of the strength of his "claims."

Moreover, you have totally dodged the question: what do you think should happen to this guy? Do you honestly think it's equitable for him just get his job back and for the University to be forced to turn a blind eye to his academic misconduct? It's not a question of law, so don't bother ducking behind the "governor was a jerk, therefore Churchill's a folk hero" excuse. Morally, what should happen with people who have committed acts that would be more than sufficient grounds for termination but who were dismissed subsequent to a procedurally flawed review?

[Tanasinn]

I have to imagine the university will dispose of him via students voting with their feet. Who's going to attend the classes of a professor labelled as a plagiarist and academically incompetent unless they have to?

[Master of Ossus]

I have to imagine the university will dispose of him via students voting with their feet. Who's going to attend the classes of a professor labelled as a plagiarist and academically incompetent unless they have to?

Well, I assume there are some nutjob University of Colorado students who would support Churchill--we have just such a nutjob in this very thread.

More seriously, at most colleges and universities, being unpopular (or teaching unpopular courses, or whatever) with students is not a grounds for dismissal for tenured faculty members. If he gets a free pass for his academic misconduct, I'm guessing that he'll be allowed to teach for as long as he wants to get a paycheck.

[Omega18]

So how would to describe what was done to Native Americans in pursuit of 'manifest destiny' other than as genocide? At the absolute best it was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale and this Churchill bloke is by no means the first academic to describe it as amounting to genocide.

There generally is a big difference if deaths from disease were spread deliberately or not, especially given the evidence such a large portion of the Native American population actually died from the spread of the assorted diseases.

The HUGE issue is he OUTRIGHT FALSIFIED a key component of his case. It would be like accussing the US of genocide in Iraq and then making up a bogus story about how the US is gassing civillians on a massive scale in deaths camps in Iraq. (Or pehaps to create the perfect analogy claiming Israel is running such death camps and killing all the Palestinians right now.)

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I may have missed it, but is there some way around just hiring him back, conducting a new, pubic investigation, and then firing him again for different reasons related to his academic dishonesty?

[Master of Ossus]

I may have missed it, but is there some way around just hiring him back, conducting a new, pubic investigation, and then firing him again for different reasons related to his academic dishonesty?

I'm not sure what exactly the jury had to say (nor what, exactly, the law is in Colorado), but since he was fired originally because of his academic dishonesty and misconduct by a faculty board I don't think they could fire him, again for the same offenses with another faculty review board.

[Elfdart]

I didn't ask about that: I asked what you think should happen to this guy. He committed gross acts of academic misconduct. You think he should just be given his job back?

Either that or buy him off. This no different from a sexual harassment case where an office manager thinks the "fact" that a secretary was a bad employee and deserved to be fired anyway excuses groping the employee on the job and firing them when they won't just take it, AND that the company shouldn't be forced to make restitution. Well it takes much sadder tales to make me cry.

If giving the employee his or her job back is so "disruptive" (translation: a constant and embarrassing reminder of what an asshole the manager is), then they can cough up some cash to make them go away.

And you think that the University has to just sit back and watch as someone commits gross academic misconduct while sitting on their faculty and receiving their paychecks because politicians don't like the guy?

You talk about this alleged academic misconduct as though it's a proven fact.

No wonder you treat gross academic misconduct as being immaterial for people in academic positions: your own intellectual dishonesty and shrill screeching over what you perceive as unfairness blinds you to the totally obvious to the point where you actually cite that Volokh quote as being pertinent here!

Not only was Churchill never prosecuted (and Volokh is talking about "selective enforcement of criminal laws" [emphasis added]), but there is no argument that can turn attacking Churchill for his behavior into an "arbitrary classification" akin to race and religion for purposes of the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to say or do whatever you want without personal or professional consequences, and I think you're writing him a free pass for his professional misconduct too quickly.

Ah go fuck yourself.

I cited Volokh because he mentioned the actual case involved. I don't agree with his conclusions. For example, a trumped up IRS audit on a dissident (one of the tactics used by Nixon's thugs) isn't a criminal prosecution either, but it sure as hell would count as the kind of selective enforcement and retaliation prohibited by law.

Churchill claiming for damages, there, would've been a legal joke. I don't attribute it to him not trying to hurt taxpayers, but rather to a reasonable legal assessment of the strength of his "claims."

Moreover, you have totally dodged the question: what do you think should happen to this guy? Do you honestly think it's equitable for him just get his job back and for the University to be forced to turn a blind eye to his academic misconduct? It's not a question of law, so don't bother ducking behind the "governor was a jerk, therefore Churchill's a folk hero" excuse. Morally, what should happen with people who have committed acts that would be more than sufficient grounds for termination but who were dismissed subsequent to a procedurally flawed review?

So much concern trolling for poor CU, you almost make it sound sincere.

Let's see: Before the witch hysteria after Churchill's essay, they had no problems with his methods or scholarship when his books were selling and his classes were full. No problem with giving tenure to someone without a PhD. No problem with Ward Churchill whatsoever. So all these crocodile tears over this stain on the honor of a college with pretty loose standards is like fretting over Paris Hilton's lost virtue.

They made their bed and now they get to sleep in it. If the university wants its academic hymen restored, they should cough up the cash and pay Ward Churchill to go away and peddle his wares somewhere else. While they're at it, they should also get rid of the regents and others working for the university who perjured themselves in depositions and on the witness stand.

Mr. Lane has become quite adept at using technology in the courtroom. He employed the technique of playing clips from a video deposition to impeach the witness on several points:

1) Hayes stated in her deposition that the “only thing out there” at the time of the 2/3/05 meeting when the regents voted to investigate was Churchill’s 9/11 essay, but on the stand today she stated there were other yet to be proven allegations before the regents at the time of the vote.

2) Lane asked if Hayes and the regents were interested in what kind of faculty member Churchill was and the kinds of things he had said generally, and was that the reason for the generalized investigation. Hayes said no, the reason for the general nature of the investigation were the allegation of academic misconduct. Lane then played her video deposition, in which she stated almost verbatim that the regents were in fact interested in what kind of faculty member Churchill was and the kinds of things he had said generally. On the stand, Hayes then agreed that these were her words in the deposition.

3) The Privileges & Tenure Committee (PTC) voted 3-2 for an action other than termination, but Hayes voted to terminate Churchill. Mr. Lane asked the main reason she voted to fire him, was it because he didn’t show enough remorse? Hayes said no, that wasn’t the reason. Lane then showed a clip of her video deposition in which she stated she felt he should be terminated rather than just suspended because, as President Brown said, Churchill felt no remorse for his research misconduct, and this was unacceptable. Lane again pointed out the inconsistency, and Hayes admitted on the stand that she voted to fire Churchill for this research misconduct, and she misspoke on the deposition.

AND

Churchill attorney David Lane grilled CU Regent Michael Carrigan during cross-examination, accusing him of contradicting his previous sworn testimony about why the school ultimately investigated Churchill for academic fraud.

Carrigan testified Thursday that he understood the university's initial investigation as an attempt not to probe into Churchill's scholarship, but to determine if the former ethnic studies professor had overstepped the bounds of protected free expression as a public employee and used his position at CU inappropriately to advance a political agenda.

But in a recent deposition shown to the jury, the regent was quoted as saying that he understood then-Interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano's February 2005 decision to look into Churchill's writings and speeches to include the professor's "scholarship."

Carrigan said Thursday he "misspoke" in his earlier testimony.

These weren't the only ones. Given that lying under oath is a felony, I should think that ridding the board of regents of perjurers would do more to help the school's reputation than putting a Dirty Fucking Hippie in his place.