Ward Churchill 1, War Whores 0

[Elfdart]

Huffington Post/AP

DENVER — A jury ruled Thursday that the University of Colorado wrongly fired the professor who compared some Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi, a verdict that gives the professor $1 and a chance to get his job back. "What was asked for and what was delivered was justice," Ward Churchill said outside the courtroom.

Then-Gov. Bill Owens was among the officials who had called on the university to fire Churchill after his essay touched off a national firestorm, but the tenured professor of ethnic studies was ultimately terminated on charges of research misconduct.

Churchill said claims including plagiarism were just a cover and that he never would have been fired if it weren't for the essay in which he called World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi leader who helped orchestrate the Holocaust. Jurors agreed.

When the verdict was read, Churchill hugged his attorney, David Lane, and his wife, Natsu Saito.

"I can't tell you how significant this is," Lane said. "There are few defining moments that give the First Amendment this kind of light."

A judge will decide whether Churchill gets his job back. Lane said a reinstatement motion would be filed within 30 days and a hearing would likely be scheduled in June.

"What's next for me? Reinstatement, of course," Churchill said. "That's what I asked for. I didn't ask for money."

University spokesman Ken McConnellogue said the university will review its options before deciding whether to appeal.

"(The verdict) doesn't change the fact that more than 20 of his faculty peers found that he engaged in plagiarism and other academic misconduct," McConnellogue said.

He said the jury's $1 damage award sends a message about the merits of Churchill's civil claims.

Lane said the university will also be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in Churchill's legal bills.

Churchill's essay was written in 2001 but attracted little attention until 2005, when critics publicized it after Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College in upstate New York.

Churchill testified last week that he didn't mean his comments to be hurtful to Sept. 11 victims. He said he was arguing that "if you make it a practice of killing other people's babies for personal gain ... eventually they're going to give you a taste of the same thing."

Betsy Hoffman, who was president of the university at the time, had testified that Owens pressured her to fire Churchill and said he would "unleash my plan" when she told him she couldn't.

In his testimony, Owens denied threatening the university.

University officials concluded that Churchill couldn't be fired over the essay because of his First Amendment rights, but they launched an investigation of his academic research.

That investigation, which didn't include the Sept. 11 essay, concluded he had plagiarized, fabricated evidence and committed other misconduct. He was fired on those allegations in 2007.

The university has maintained that the firing was justified.

So not only do the taxpayers in Colorado get to foot the bill for Owens' chickenshit vendetta, they get to pay for Churchill's legal fees, the appeals (if any), as well as either giving Churchill his job back (plus back pay) or paying him to go away. I have no sympathy for them. They voted for this douche nozzle and now they face the consequences.

The legal principal is that a state agency (including public schools and universities) can't retaliate against a citizen because of their political views. The governor of Colorado made it clear that he wanted Churchill fired for his essay, and they complied by groping for any kind of excuse to do so. There's no difference between this and a policeman who singles out a driver with a "No Nukes" bumper sticker for a speeding ticket because of their views.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Except when they looked into him, they actually DID find staggeringly large numbers of plagiarized doccuments in his portfolio.

[Omega18]

Except when they looked into him, they actually DID find staggeringly large numbers of plagiarized doccuments in his portfolio.

Furthermore, he clearly engaged in outrageous academic misconduct in general, including basically trying to falsify a case of genocide against the US. (He flat out clearly made up a claim about the US deliberately infecting Native Americans with smallpox laced blankets in one case.)

I don't see how you can honestly believe he deserves a single cent when you really look at the facts. Just because he initially attracted attention for other reasons doesn't mean he should somehow get immunity from all the reasons he clearly deserved to be fired. (It would be more like the police officer probably singled out the car due the bumper sticker for speeding, but then found tons of heroin in the car in plain view when he looked after stopping it.)

[CaptainChewbacca]

I was led to understand that they awarded him $1 not because it's all he asked for, but because it's the smallest amount they can give him and leave him unable to appeal the decision.

[Edi]

Furthermore, he clearly engaged in outrageous academic misconduct in general, including basically trying to falsify a case of genocide against the US. (He flat out clearly made up a claim about the US deliberately infecting Native Americans with smallpox laced blankets in one case.)

That sort of thing was done, actually and has been documented historically. Whether it was done by the US government directly I don't know, it is an actual fact that this particular tactic was used against Native American populations.

[PainRack]

Furthermore, he clearly engaged in outrageous academic misconduct in general, including basically trying to falsify a case of genocide against the US. (He flat out clearly made up a claim about the US deliberately infecting Native Americans with smallpox laced blankets in one case.)

That sort of thing was done, actually and has been documented historically. Whether it was done by the US government directly I don't know, it is an actual fact that this particular tactic was used against Native American populations.

I was under the impression that sans germ theory, the question is whether giving them smallpox laced blankets was intended to deliberately infect them with smallpox, or simply another way of buying off the Indians.

[Elfdart]

I was led to understand that they awarded him $1 not because it's all he asked for, but because it's the smallest amount they can give him and leave him unable to appeal the decision.

He sued to get his job back and to be reimbursed for legal fees. Anyway, the jury decided on the $1 fee because:

Colorado Daily

Juror speaks out

Members of the jury declined to talk to reporters after the verdict Thursday, and were escorted from the courthouse by sheriff’s deputies.

But a woman identifying herself as juror Bethany Newill called the Caplis and Silverman show on Denver’s KHOW radio Thursday evening, and said the $1 award wasn’t intended to send a message that Churchill was a fraud.

She told the lawyers-turned-radio hosts that five of the six jurors were intent on awarding Churchill money but that one was insistent he get nothing.

Newill said they ultimately agreed on the nominal figure because Churchill’s attorneys didn’t provide them with a clear formula for determining damages for lost income or non-economic losses, like harm to reputation.

“We sat there for pretty much hours debating this,” she said.

Silverman asked if Newill thought the jury would have landed on a higher figure if Lane had called an economist to the stand to quantify Churchill’s losses.

“Definitely, I do,” she said.

So it's pretty clear that Churchill wasn't out to screw the taxpayers, since he could have claimed all kinds of damages, but didn't.

[Elfdart]

Furthermore, he clearly engaged in outrageous academic misconduct in general, including basically trying to falsify a case of genocide against the US. (He flat out clearly made up a claim about the US deliberately infecting Native Americans with smallpox laced blankets in one case.)

That sort of thing was done, actually and has been documented historically. Whether it was done by the US government directly I don't know, it is an actual fact that this particular tactic was used against Native American populations.

I was under the impression that sans germ theory, the question is whether giving them smallpox laced blankets was intended to deliberately infect them with smallpox, or simply another way of buying off the Indians.

You don't need germ theory to figure out how to spread disease. The ancient Assyrians thought disease was caused by the demon Pazuzu, but they still lobbed dead bodies, feces, filthy clothes, garbage, etc into enemy towns. This kind of thing was SOP in many European wars, too.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm really confused. WHY did he call 9/11 victims "little Eichmann's"? That doesn't make any sense at all.

That sort of thing was done, actually and has been documented historically. Whether it was done by the US government directly I don't know, it is an actual fact that this particular tactic was used against Native American populations.

Can you provide a source? Everything I've ever read about the subject has said that there is no conclusive evidence that it was used as a tactic.

[Omega18]

That sort of thing was done, actually and has been documented historically. Whether it was done by the US government directly I don't know, it is an actual fact that this particular tactic was used against Native American populations.

The case where it was apparently done was much earlier by a British officer significantly prior to the US becoming an independent nation. In this particular case, its blatantly obvious Churchill flat out made it up. The only mention of anything resembling this assertion found by historians who really researched this particular claim by Churchill in detail was local Native American folklore suggesting the white men may have brought sickness with them, but that fits with individuals being sick and spreading diseases and certainly doesn't support something deliberate like giving out smallpox infected blankets. If I recall correctly, Churchill cited a non-existent paper to make this claim seem more creditible.

[Edi]

I'm really confused. WHY did he call 9/11 victims "little Eichmann's"? That doesn't make any sense at all.

That sort of thing was done, actually and has been documented historically. Whether it was done by the US government directly I don't know, it is an actual fact that this particular tactic was used against Native American populations.

Can you provide a source? Everything I've ever read about the subject has said that there is no conclusive evidence that it was used as a tactic.

So it seems that I was wrong. Did some quick looking into it and all I can get is the Amherst links. Given the virulence and various transmission vectors of smallpox together with Amerindian lack of resistance, it is also not difficult to see why this gets such prominence.

Given the way disease has been used as a weapon in history, it is not an outrageous logical stretch but actually rather natural to accept this. It just happens to be wrong, apparently.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The term 'Little Eichmanns' was coined by an anti-civilization anarchist named John Zerzan. It's used to describe people who participate in systems which are on the large-scale amoral or destructive. It was Churchill's opinion that anyone working at the WTC was part of the corrupt capitalist/exploitation machine, and deserved to die.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Given the way disease has been used as a weapon in history, it is not an outrageous logical stretch but actually rather natural to accept this. It just happens to be wrong, apparently.

Indeed, I find it difficult to believe that at no point during the conquest of the New World NONE of the Europeans ever really thought about disease. It's not like they didn't know how badly it was fucking up the Indians. But this is all an aside.

The term 'Little Eichmanns' was coined by an anti-civilization anarchist named John Zerzan. It's used to describe people who participate in systems which are on the large-scale amoral or destructive. It was Churchill's opinion that anyone working at the WTC was part of the corrupt capitalist/exploitation machine, and deserved to die.

So why is anyone defending this fucktard? While I acknowledge that the means through which he was removed don't seem entirely appropriate (assuming the OP is to be taken at face value), I am not going to shed any tears if this guy never gets his job back. What an asshole.

[TithonusSyndrome]

The term 'Little Eichmanns' was coined by an anti-civilization anarchist named John Zerzan. It's used to describe people who participate in systems which are on the large-scale amoral or destructive. It was Churchill's opinion that anyone working at the WTC was part of the corrupt capitalist/exploitation machine, and deserved to die.

Hang on, wait - was it Churchill's opinion that the people who met the definition of "Little Eichmanns" ought to die, or are "Little Eichmanns" by definition as established by Zerzan justifiably killed by anti-corporatists? I can't help but think that a word for a implicit supporter of the exploitation of third-world nations is handy, though invoking Nazism is probably unfair, but I certainly don't think they're deserving of death.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The term 'Little Eichmanns' was coined by an anti-civilization anarchist named John Zerzan. It's used to describe people who participate in systems which are on the large-scale amoral or destructive. It was Churchill's opinion that anyone working at the WTC was part of the corrupt capitalist/exploitation machine, and deserved to die.

Hang on, wait - was it Churchill's opinion that the people who met the definition of "Little Eichmanns" ought to die, or are "Little Eichmanns" by definition as established by Zerzan justifiably killed by anti-corporatists? I can't help but think that a word for a implicit supporter of the exploitation of third-world nations is handy, though invoking Nazism is probably unfair, but I certainly don't think they're deserving of death.

Yes, in Churchill's own statement here, he states that people working at the WTC were 'technocrats of empire' and the 'equivalent of Little Eichmanns'. By working where they did and doing what they did, they facillitated the 'genocide' of the third world, thereby making the WTC a legitimate military target. Be it noted, he does not deem ALL the victims to be nazi-equivalents, only those actively working in the military-corporate power structure.

Which is still, ya know, a dick thing to do.

P.S. Ziggy, I don't know how a quote by me got attributed to elfdart, but I'd be much obliged if you corrected that.

[Knife]

He sued to get his job back and to be reimbursed for legal fees. Anyway, the jury decided on the $1 fee because:

Colorado Daily

Juror speaks out

Members of the jury declined to talk to reporters after the verdict Thursday, and were escorted from the courthouse by sheriff’s deputies.

But a woman identifying herself as juror Bethany Newill called the Caplis and Silverman show on Denver’s KHOW radio Thursday evening, and said the $1 award wasn’t intended to send a message that Churchill was a fraud.

She told the lawyers-turned-radio hosts that five of the six jurors were intent on awarding Churchill money but that one was insistent he get nothing.

Newill said they ultimately agreed on the nominal figure because Churchill’s attorneys didn’t provide them with a clear formula for determining damages for lost income or non-economic losses, like harm to reputation.

“We sat there for pretty much hours debating this,” she said.

Silverman asked if Newill thought the jury would have landed on a higher figure if Lane had called an economist to the stand to quantify Churchill’s losses.

“Definitely, I do,” she said.

So it's pretty clear that Churchill wasn't out to screw the taxpayers, since he could have claimed all kinds of damages, but didn't.

That assumes the woman on the radio was the dissenter. If she wasn't, her "I do" means jack shit if she wasn't the dissenter whom made the $1 the option.

[Master of Ossus]

Given the way disease has been used as a weapon in history, it is not an outrageous logical stretch but actually rather natural to accept this. It just happens to be wrong, apparently.

Indeed, I find it difficult to believe that at no point during the conquest of the New World NONE of the Europeans ever really thought about disease. It's not like they didn't know how badly it was fucking up the Indians. But this is all an aside.

They thought about the disease (and various other diseases) quite a bit. Cortez, on reentering Tenochtitlan, commented about how grateful he was to God for creating a smallpox epidemic that gave him a chance against their huge numbers (if you read Spanish, btw, his account is amazing--Spanish is also interesting because it hasn't changed fundamentally in spelling or grammar since then so his account is stunningly readable). Franciscan and Dominican missionaries also, frequently, commented on how various diseases were affecting their charges in Florida, New Mexico, and elsewhere.

But the claim that there was widespread, intentional infection of native populations is total bullshit. Even the infamous Fort Pitt incident is entirely unclear, from the primary documents, and that's the one that EVERYONE cites. Trent says that he gave them two blankets and a handkerchief "out of regards" for the Indians, and given the close contact between natives and the soldiers in the fort, and the other white population groups at the time, it's hard to attribute any outbreak to those gifts. Moreover, that incident happened in the mid-18th century when, in historical terms, there weren't any Native Americans left to infect--they had all been wiped out centuries earlier by diseases that were almost certainly accidentally transmitted.

Regarding Churchill: yeah, I can maybe see that he was removed improperly, but I can't understand why any halfway reputable institution would want this guy on their faculty. He's an obnoxious kook and makes no effort whatsoever to pay even lip-service to legitimate scholarship.

[Elfdart]

Yes, in Churchill's own statement here, he states that people working at the WTC were 'technocrats of empire' and the 'equivalent of Little Eichmanns'. By working where they did and doing what they did, they facillitated the 'genocide' of the third world, thereby making the WTC a legitimate military target. Be it noted, he does not deem ALL the victims to be nazi-equivalents, only those actively working in the military-corporate power structure.

Which is still, ya know, a dick thing to do.

You selective quoting is also a "dick thing to do":

Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center . Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad , this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 911 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

I remember two separate threads in this very forum where some of our more fucktarded posters fapped themselves into a lather over how the slaughter of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza was a case of tough titty since military and paramilitary forces were among the civilians. The only differences are that (a) the US was on the receiving end and (b) Al Qaeda had the good taste to NOT make up bullshit stories about alerting innocent bystanders via cell phone.

[Elfdart]

That assumes the woman on the radio was the dissenter. If she wasn't, her "I do" means jack shit if she wasn't the dissenter whom made the $1 the option.

Sure it does. If they were handed an estimate of damages, they might have argued to point further instead of compromising at $1. It's rather difficult to argue for damages when the plaintiff doesn't ask for any. Even if they couldn't get the holdout to agree, they could have kicked the issue back to the judge on the grounds that they couldn't reach a conclusion.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I remember two separate threads in this very forum where some of our more fucktarded posters fapped themselves into a lather over how the slaughter of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza was a case of tough titty since military and paramilitary forces were among the civilians. The only differences are that (a) the US was on the receiving end and (b) Al Qaeda had the good taste to NOT make up bullshit stories about alerting innocent bystanders via cell phone.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't one of them. Is your point that there are people on the right as equally 'fucktarded' as Ward Churchill? Because I'm not disputing that. Churchill stated that the World Trade Center was a military target, and that the 9/11 hijackers were justified in killing the businesspeople who worked there. That's what people (me included) take issue with.

[TheKwas]

Is your point that there are people on the right as equally 'fucktarded' as Ward Churchill? Because I'm not disputing that. Churchill stated that the World Trade Center was a military target, and that the 9/11 hijackers were justified in killing the businesspeople who worked there. That's what people (me included) take issue with.

Jesus christ, reading comprehension is key. You missed the point once again.

Ward Churchill never said that the 9/11 hijackers were justified in killing the businesspeople or anything of the sort what he said was:

Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad , this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target.

Hence, only if we apply the same standards to America that America applies it's enemies is the attack justified. Of course, Ward Churchill is a radical leftist who completely rejects the standards the American military has in regards to what is a 'legitimate' target, so he doesn't believe that 9/11 was justified as he says right in the article:

I am not a "defender" of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

There's still plenty to disagree with, there's no reason to misrepresent his argument.

[CaptainChewbacca]

There's still plenty to disagree with, there's no reason to misrepresent his argument.

Fair enough. I'll keep mindful next time.

[Plekhanov]

Furthermore, he clearly engaged in outrageous academic misconduct in general, including basically trying to falsify a case of genocide against the US. (He flat out clearly made up a claim about the US deliberately infecting Native Americans with smallpox laced blankets in one case.)

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.

[Master of Ossus]

Elfdart: what exactly do you think should happen to this guy, then? Do you think that the academic world and the University should be forced to turn a blind-eye to his various academic inadequacies because they were only investigated after the governor (and many, many other people) got ticked off by his comments? If so, how do you justify such a policy? Don't you think this creates a perverse incentive where if you've committed academic fraud then you should just make yourself a public figure ASAP and get immunity?

Keep in mind: the University at which he works is a public institution, and so his salary while he works there (and all of his associated activities) are still financed by taxpayers. I'm not sure why you have this fixation with it costing the taxpayers to bring this charge and how he wasn't trying to stick it to them--maybe not, but they're still footing the bill for him to continue working.

[Elfdart]

Elfdart: what exactly do you think should happen to this guy, then? Do you think that the academic world and the University should be forced to turn a blind-eye to his various academic inadequacies because they were only investigated after the governor (and many, many other people) got ticked off by his comments? If so, how do you justify such a policy? Don't you think this creates a perverse incentive where if you've committed academic fraud then you should just make yourself a public figure ASAP and get immunity?

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 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.

LINK

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.

Keep in mind: the University at which he works is a public institution, and so his salary while he works there (and all of his associated activities) are still financed by taxpayers.

No shit, Sherlock. That's why I wrote:

So not only do the taxpayers in Colorado get to foot the bill for Owens' chickenshit vendetta...

I'm not sure why you have this fixation with it costing the taxpayers to bring this charge and how he wasn't trying to stick it to them--maybe not, but they're still footing the bill for him to continue working.

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.