(Ward) Churchill wins case against CU

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Denver Post

Ward Churchill won his case against the University of Colorado today as a Denver jury unanimously decided he was fired in retaliation for his controversial essay on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The jury gave Churchill $1 for past losses, finding he was fired over protected free speech.

Denver Chief District Judge Larry J. Naves will decide in a separate hearing whether the former professor can return to his job or receive pay for years he may have worked at CU.

Earlier this afternoon, Naves summoned the attorneys from each side back to court because the jurors had a question.



Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12055632

[DS1]

1. 1 dollar?

Nice

[Posteritatis]

2. $1 damages are common

He wanted the court precedent, not the monetary reperations.

[Democrats_win]

3. It was a Pontius Pilot verdict: no damages! From the "legal" system that gave us *!

Proves that individuals can't trust the legal system. A big corporation on the other hand will get any and all judgments under all circumstances.

BTW, the University of Colorado was wrong to fire him. At least we got that.

[maxsolomon]

4. the wheels of justice turn slowly

he'll be back in the classroom at CU eventually.

only $1 is for saying mean things about america that hurt the jury's feelings. whether or not they're true, you're not supposed to make americans feel uncomfortable with their complacency and complicity.

i seem to remember he called WTC workers "little eichmanns".

[WriteDown]

33. He should never be allowed to teach at another University....

and it as nothing to do with his comments which I thought were minor at best. Freaking fake Native American trying to latch on to some people's legitimate heritage. If I had my way, I'd make him go live and work on MY reservation. Scum bag!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

[maxsolomon]

58. if that's the case - and i know nothing about it

then why does his ethnicity or lack thereof qualify or disqualify him? was he appointed to a post set aside for native americans?

[WriteDown]

59. Here

The Rocky Mountain News, in 2005, published a genealogy of Churchill, and reported "no evidence of a single Indian ancestor" . The News reports that both of Churchill's birth parents are listed as white on the 1930 census, as are all of his other known ancestors on previous censuses and other official documents.<26> The Denver Post's genealogical investigation resulted in the same conclusion.

Documents in Churchill's university personnel file show that he was granted tenure in a "special opportunity position."<13> Such positions were later described as a program designed to help "recruit and hire a more diverse faculty."<27> In 1994, then CU-Boulder Chancellor James Corbridge refused to take action on allegations that Churchill was fraudulently claiming to be an Indian, saying "it has always been university policy that a person's race or ethnicity is self-proving."<28>

[maxsolomon]

60. wow - that is not cool

and he's not even that unique a thinker - he stole a lot of that essay from john zerzan.

[christx30]

64. i did not think

he should be fired for his comments. But he was bringing bad publicity to the university. If I were the school, I would have brought that up, as it might make prospective students not want to go there. Any employeer should be allowed to fire someone that is hurting their business.

[mike_c]

5. excellent news....

Firing academics because you don't like the consequences of academic freedom is wrong. Churchill has some academic honesty issues too, but we all know that CU wasn't interested in pursuing those until he said mean things about 9/11.

xoxo
Mike C.

[Rage for Order]

7. Or...

The university didn't bother to look into his "academic honesty issues" until the people who pay his salary, i.e. the residents of Colorado, got pissed off at him after he brought the attention on himself by saying some stupid things. He's a fraud, cheat, plagiarist, and douchebag of the highest order. Aside from that he's great.

[mike_c]

8. I don't have any information to support or refute the allegations you've made...

...so I won't comment on them at all. However, it is not unusual for academics to be reviled for lots of reasons AFTER they make reasoned statements-- whether correct, incorrect, or impossible to judge-- that rub folks the wrong way. Dismissing someone for being unpopular after making unpopular statements is a violation of the most fundamental principles of academic freedom.

[bertman]

11. WOW! Please enlighten us further regarding his fraudulence, cheating, plagiarism, and

worst of all, his douchebaggery.

[Rage for Order]

14. I'd be happy to!

Here you go

http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf

That would be the link to the Investigative Committee Report that found "...that Professor Churchill committed several forms of academic misconduct as defined in the policy statements of the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Colorado system." The report is 125 pages long. Have at it.

As for the evidence of his douchebaggery, calling the victims of 9/11 "Little Eichmanns" pretty much speaks for itself.

[bertman]

39. Thanks, Rage and earthside.

[ProudDad]

51. I just read it

It sounds like he was "guilty" of being something of a polemicist (as are most academics in the "Social Sciences") and was slightly sloppy on a couple of minor occasions. Then the wimps of academia had to fry him 'cause they were afraid of the right-wing republicans crying out for his blood.

You might like to actually read it before trying to use it in your polemic attempts.

"As for the evidence of his douchebaggery, calling the victims of 9/11 "Little Eichmanns" pretty much speaks for itself."

One could argue that many of the folks who worked in the Towers (especially those working for CIA, tennis shoe companies, etc.) were paper pushers like Eichmann was. Their actions caused and cause the death of others just as his work did. Whether that's the designed purpose (which in the case of the CIA if often is) or just a side effect of the "work" of Nike, Adidas or Chevron, the death of thousands of innocents is still the result...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrtoLSlOUAo&feature=related

Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem

"Arendt states that aside from a desire for improving his career, Eichmann showed no trace of antisemitism or psychological damage. Her subtitle famously referred to the "banality of evil," and that phrase is used quite abruptly as the final words of the final chapter. In part, at least, the phrase refers to Eichmann's deportment at the trial, displaying neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job" ("He did his duty...; he not only obeyed orders, he also obeyed the law." p. 135)."

They were just doing their jobs...

[GoesTo11]

54. Slightly sloppy on a couple of minor occasions?

Maybe you read it but didn't understand it.

He is personally responsible for creating and spreading some huge lies. The treatment of Native Americans was bad enough. Making up false stories and evidence about smallpox infection, blood quantum laws, etc. only serves to cause hate, division, and a further feeling of victimization. This is essentially the same as a medical researcher who fakes data to show that a therapy works when it doesn't really work. Published, refereed scholarly research is relied upon by others who use it for informing their decisions and actions, as well as for teaching and for directing future research. The whole institution of academia is built on the integrity of research. Academic work under scholarly standards serves as an arbiter of truth for society, really. The fact that academia has such standards is what sets it apart from, oh, business and government as something that society needs.

This report from CU was done by professors who had to spend the time preparing it on top of their regular jobs. It is amazingly detailed - entailing enough research for a number of articles. It is orders of magnitude more detailed than a tenure case. CU is a major public university of good reputation, and they take academic dishonesty seriously as they must.

[earthside]

20. A Known Flake

Many of us in the progressive community in Denver-Boulder have known for a long time that Churchill is a total fraud.

One, he's mostly likely not native American at all.

Two, he's an art thief.

Three, he's devoid of any abiding principles, in other words he's a rabble rouser for the sake of rabble rousing.

He's certainly more libertarian than liberal.

He should have been given the boot long ago.

Really, its too bad that he won this case -- it means that we will have to endure his public angst for a few more years to come.

[WriteDown]

34. Fake Native American!!!!!!

That is enough.

[swilton]

6. MY HERO!!

:toast: :bounce: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[bemildred]

9. A great win for free minds and free speech! nt

[earthside]

23. Hardly.

A fraud is a fraud is a fraud.

The facts reported in the citation below are indefensible, in my opinion, and it is too bad that by posturing as some kind of wronged free speech advocate, this guy has become a 'hero' to some liberals.

'Original' Churchill Art Piece Creates Controversy - CBS4 News

An exclusive report by CBS4 News indicates embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill may have broken copyright law by making a mirror image of an artist's work and selling it as his own.

Placing Churchill's work beside that of renowned artist Thomas E. Mails and the two look like mirror images. But one is a copyrighted drawing. The other is an autographed print by Churchill.

When CBS4 News reporter Raj Chohan tried to talk to Churchill about a possible copyright infringement, he received an angry response. ...

... "Get that camera out of my face," Churchill said.

"This is an artwork we've got called 'Winter Attack.' It looks like it was based on a Thomas Mails painting; it looks like you ripped it off. Can you tell us about that?" Chohan asked.

That prompted Churchill to take a swing at Chohan while he held a stack of papers in his hand.

Copying someone else's artwork and then selling it as your own has got to be one of the lowest, scummiest things a person can do.

That's who you're cheering on?

[bemildred]

24. Please see post #22.

I do not care about his personal flaws. If they had went after him outside the context of his controversial statements about 9/11, I would not care at all. But when they went after his tenure because of his public political statements, it was an attempt to stifle public debate and instill fear in academia, and that I will never support.

[earthside]

31. Art Theft is Just a 'Personal Flaw'?

Oh, please.

Churchill was a scandalous individual before he finally got the whole country to pay attention to him with his 'controversial statements'.

The jury apparently agrees with you, but stifling Ward Churchill would be a good thing ... because from art theft to plagiarism to persecuted "radical" he is a -- FRAUD.

[bemildred]

36. So you want to bicker about nomenclature?

You seem to be very emotional about this.

[chascarrillo]

29. Churchill said that he obtained permission to make the derivative art.

In the two years since that story aired, the Mails estate - which was quoted in the article - hasn't contested that in court. Try again.

On edit: Make that four years; the news report aired in 2005.

[ichi]

50. facts? no, hyprebole or most probably hysteria

Earthside submitted:

A fraud is a fraud is a fraud.

The facts reported in the citation below are indefensible, in my opinion, and it is too bad that by posturing as some kind of wronged free speech advocate, this guy has become a 'hero' to some liberals.

'Original' Churchill Art Piece Creates Controversy - CBS4 News

An exclusive report by CBS4 News indicates embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill may have broken copyright law by making a mirror image of an artist's work and selling it as his own.

Placing Churchill's work beside that of renowned artist Thomas E. Mails and the two look like mirror images. But one is a copyrighted drawing. The other is an autographed print by Churchill.

When CBS4 News reporter Raj Chohan tried to talk to Churchill about a possible copyright infringement, he received an angry response. ...

... "Get that camera out of my face," Churchill said.

"This is an artwork we've got called 'Winter Attack.' It looks like it was based on a Thomas Mails painting; it looks like you ripped it off. Can you tell us about that?" Chohan asked.

That prompted Churchill to take a swing at Chohan while he held a stack of papers in his hand.

Copying someone else's artwork and then selling it as your own has got to be one of the lowest, scummiest things a person can do.

That's who you're cheering on?

i'm sorry, is that from the trail at you went to CBS News4? even this "judgement" says MAY HAVE. then you take MAY HAVE and say "SCUM."

wow, hope your never on a jury. doubtful you make it on anyway, i guess. as you call what CBS4 News who said MAY HAVE: facts. wow.

get that camera out of my face... taking a swing... whew, there's undeniable evidence of academic guilt.

he MAY BE as you say, but your post (like most of my own) says more about you, doesn't it?

[certainot]

10. churchill's public and legal prosecution was an example of GOP radio power

and why dems /progressives/liberals must break up the talk radio monopoly. only the radio monopoly can blast the country with the coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition needed. TV and print alone can't do this shit- they follow the radio groundwork done by 1000 stations.

on both the national (limbaugh, hannty, and sons) and locally on the giant denver blowhard station KOA 850, which has ruled CO politics for 20 years, they crucified this guy, like him or not. the same way way the GOP/think tanks have been swiftboating all liberal politicians and causes for 20 years, the way NM mega station KKOB went after innocent wen ho lee and put the pressure on NM AG iglesias.

[laststeamtrain]

12. Ward Churchill wins; right wing screwballs lose. Good deal. n/t.

[EFerrari]

13. Good. Take that, right wing slimeballs!

[GoesTo11]

15. His academic record really does look bad

He got hired without a doctorate and got tenure a year later without the normal process, basically because he claimed to be of American Indian heritage, and this turns out not to be true. He fabricated sources, and his plagiarism really looks like plagiarism. If he hadn't become a lightning rod because of his 9/11 comments, probably no one would have looked into it. But when you look at it, this really is a pretty bad case. It's not right to make him a villain for speaking his mind after 9/11, but just as an academic his record is disgraceful.

[Rage for Order]

16. Yep, he's the "Joe the Plumber" of academia

He was cruising right along, doing his thing with nobody noticing until he elected to speak out with an idiotic statement. At that point people started digging into his past and his record and exposed him for the fraud he is. Ward Churchill is Joe the Plumber with tenure.

[GoesTo11]

17. LOL

[Tansy_Gold]

18. thank you both. Churchill is a lazy piece of shit who makes

all real academics cringe.

for those upthread who will even read this, very few academics are ever hounded for much of anything. They labor in relative obscurity/anonymity. Churchill is a whore for attention and he got more than he bargained for.

I'm sure, however, he'll be reinstated with back pay, like the hack he is.


ptooie on him.



TG

[EFerrari]

19. That may be true to an extent but the test of academic freedom isn't how

you treat people you agree with and who are spotless. It's how you treat people like Churchill or, John Yoo, for that matter. It's easy to be nice to the nice.

[GoesTo11]

25. Plagiarism, fabrication and falsification are not meant to fall under academic freedom

Really, if you are living a professional lie, you can't argue that it was a violation of academic freedom to bust you for it. Academic freedom protects scholarly pursuits and expression, but it doesn't protect fraud. It's not a legal protection or a constitutional issue, it's a principle laid out by the AAUP to enhance the profession. There's nothing wrong with investigating frauds. Frauds do a lot to undermine the profession. Responsible professors freedoms are reduced by legislators and trustees when they hear about such abuse of the privileges of the profession. I think a lot of people knew he was a fraud anyway, so the investigations weren't just a wild goose chase.

[EFerrari]

27. "I think a lot of people knew he was a fraud anyway" --

isn't that the "everyone knows" prosecution?

[Tansy_Gold]

26. Academic honesty/dishonesty is not about who's nice and who's not

Academic dishonesty is an insult to all true academics.

There are people in virtually every academic discipline who disagree and disagree strongly with each other. They don't even like each other very much. Have you ever been in a class taught by two profs on opposite ideological sides? I have, and it's not very pretty -- but they had a mutual respect for each other's academic honesty.

Churchill is all about Churchill. He has no academic honesty. No academic honor. I've known some pretty lousy profs in my time, and even the worst of 'em would never have considered going for tenure without getting a (reasonably legit) PhD and jumping through all the required hoops (NA metaphor intentional). And I can say that I knew a college dean who hadn't yet got tenure and there was a lot of controversey abuot that, but at least she had a PhD.

CU made a big mistake in giving this guy a pass to begin with, and they'll probably pay for that mistake by having to keep his sorry ass on their campus.

TG

[EFerrari]

28. This issue here was a political firing. That is in itself dishonest.

[Pavulon]

43. Lying douche bags..

should stay out of the spotlight. That light reveals they are full of shit and their peers toss their ass out. Really he just made shit up and got called on it.

Maybe he got caught for being a lying piece of shit sooner because he said some stupid crap to get attention, but at the end of the day he is was still a lying plagiarizing fuck and got busted.

[chascarrillo]

53. At least four CU employees and regents perjured themselves on the stand. Who's the douchebag?

Four CU employees and regents who testified for the defense (the university) were caught flat out lying on the stand. They would be asked a question, they'd respond, and then video was played showing them saying the exact opposite thing during depositions for the trial.

Here's an example:

3) (Churchill Attorney) Lane asked in court: isn't it true that you (Regent Peter Steinhauer) believed Churchill was bringing CU down, and you voted for the investigation to see if there was anything out there to give grounds for dismissal? No.

From the video deposition: Steinhauer said almost verbatim that Churchill was bringing CU down and that he voted for the investigation to see if there was “anything out there” to give them grounds for dismissal.

Above from http://www.theracetothebottom.org/ward-churchill/churchill-v-university-of-colorado-monday-march-30-afternoon.html

And that's just one example from one person.

These employees and regents are perjurers, a crime far, far beyond anything that Churchill's ever been accused of. In fact, it's an actual crime.

[Pavulon]

63. Perjury is a crime, got an indictment? GJ hearings??

if not you are posting opinions. My opinion is he is a lying asshole and lost his job for academic theft.

[Igel]

30. But you miss the point.

He's *our* Joe the Plumber. That makes him a great man.

Plus, he says things that confirm what we already believe: Therefore he must be right, and if he's right then he's a great thinker. Because, well, he thinks like we do.

Now, were he conservative or, dare say, a republican, he'd be worse than scum on a toxic waste reservoir. And that's even if he *didn't* violate the copyright of a Native American artist, commit plagiarism that would make many a con artist blush with envy, and threaten a woman he was in a position of power over.

[WriteDown]

35. I could care less about most of if...

But the Native American fraud burns me up.

[GoesTo11]

38. Makes AA harder for others to benefit from.

He shamelessly took advantage of trusting people. Makes me sick, really.

[WriteDown]

46. I have a chart showing my ancestry back 5 generations....

I think you are required to show 3. We have a huge problem with fraud of that type.

[tonysam]

48. That Is Likely True,

but I can't help but laugh at your avatar.

:)

[jimlup]

21. Ward Churchill has been hard to defend in this case

Churchill's academic record is indeed poor. After arguing with right-wingers on another site they swept the "Free Speech" aside after with mention of Churchill's academic issues. They don't understand or accept the reason for academic tenure and worse they then began to ascribe Ward Churchill's values to me despite the fact that I qualified my position in every post that I did not support his politics.

What was amusing on this particular debate was that the rightwing yahoo's on the other site proceeded to try and get me "banned" from that site for my support of Churchill's freedom of speech. It was a site in Colorado dedicated to mountain climbing and not politics and fortunately, the administrator was a libertarian and ignored them. As a result of my support of freedom of speech on that thread some idiot tracked me down and started harassing me. It was more than a little frightening. After that incident, I started becoming much more careful about putting personal information (like city of residence) on my web profile. When I reported this "staking" incident to the administrator the idiot got banned.

Sorry, just needed to vent about this. Right wingers screwballs are dangerous and I've encountered a few of these from Colorado x(

[bemildred]

22. It was a political hit.

He may be a flake, but politicizing academia is way the heck more important than him or his personal defects.

[Igel]

32. And yet, this politicizes academia more than it was *before* the case. n/t

[bemildred]

37. Which is what happens when you bring politics into academic personnel issues.

Like I said, if they had went after him outside the context of the political furor over his public statements, I would have no problem with it. By doing it in the way they did, CU brought this on themselves. They created the martyr.

[Ka hrnt]

40. the firing was NOT political....

He was fired because he's a plagiarist and a liar. The only politics involved is that if it weren't for politics, no one would have ever found out what a fruad he is. His essay was certainly the factor that uncovered the evidence that led to the investigation that proved he's a plagiarist/liar. Speaking of lying, did anyone read the caption under his picture?

"Former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill holds up a dollar bill and shouts "Here's the dollar" to the audience after he was awarded one dollars damages from the school in his trial in Denver, Colorado"

I have a hard time believing CU paid him right then and there...meaning "Here's the dollar" is, well....not true.

[bemildred]

41. Sure it was. It was a witch hunt.

He pissed them of and they went looking for reasons to fire him. You admit it yourself. How come he won his suit for wrongful termination if the allegations were true?

[Pavulon]

42. Backwards, when you lie yourself into a position

calling attention to that by saying insulting and stupid shit draws the spotlight. The light reveals douche baggery and you loose your job.

Simple.

He is a liar and plagiarizer and will never hold a job at CU or any real university again.

[bemildred]

44. He'll get rich making speeches now, on campuses all over.

They would have done better to continue to ignore him.

[Ka hrnt]

47. I'd assumed he'd been making speeches for a while...

...since he was probably thoroughly unemployable, being disgraced the way he was. But there's nothing wrong with that; if people want to pay to hear him speak, hey, it's their money.

"They would have done better to continue to ignore him."

The university? No freaking way. He was a suspected--and now known--fraud. I sure as hell would want my alma mater to fire anyone whose research is comprised of made up stories and plagiarized material.

[Ka hrnt]

45. The difference is that in this case, they found a genuine witch.

"...they went looking reasons to fire him."

And guess what--"they" found them. "They" being a bunch of right-wingers from all over the country, who, knowing free speech was protected, pressed the university to do something about Churchill's plagiarism/fraud. (And the administrators, seeing a means to rid themselves of a public embarrassment, probably obliged--happily.) If he had not based his career on lies and plagiarism, he'd still be employed. But he did, and that's why he was fired. I interpret $1 of compensation as the jury's acknowledgment that Churchill's termination was justified.

[chascarrillo]

52. In case you missed the news story that started the thread, yes, the firing was political

A jury said so.

If you don't believe them, I encourage you to peruse the testimony in this case, where several folks in CU and on CU's side admitted that the firing was political. Some said so in court. Some said that it wasn't, but said that it was in their original depositions, which were played back in court (and which means that they committed perjury).

[Rage for Order]

49. CU had no choice

The guy lied on his resume, then he lied about the work he did after he was hired. Once this information became public knowledge they had to fire him. CU brought this on itself by not vetting him more thoroughly when he was hired, but they shouldn't be stuck with the guy after his deceit has been discovered.

[gordym]

55. CU, the shockjocks, and the mob continue to froth at the mouth

I like how Professor Churchill held up the dollar in victory. It was never about the money, but principle, and the jury agreed with the correct assertion of Professor Churchill that the evidence was clean cut that the CU investigative committee are liars, perjurers, and killers of academic freedom. A mob was enraged with the 9/11 essay from the start, but Professor Churchill can now continue speaking truth to Indian holocaust deniers, warmongers, and all the little Eichmanns.

[Ka hrnt]

56. It was never about the money?

"Attorney David Lane told jurors Wednesday that Churchill wants his job back but also deserves financial compensation."

[Ka hrnt]

57. The $1 reward...read what Churchill's attorney said:

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/apr/01/ward-churchill-university-colorado-trial/

Attorney David Lane told jurors Wednesday that Churchill wants his job back but also deserves financial compensation.

"What do you believe fairly compensates a man for crushing his identity, for destroying his reputation, for dragging it through the mud on a national, on an international, level?" Lane asked. "You need to send a message to everyone who is listening: what the First Amendment is worth in terms of this man's reputation and when someone sets out to destroy it."

;)

[gordym]

61. Not about the money

I suppose some people here think then that anytime a monetary award is brought up in a murder case, or sex abuse case, it's all about the money also.

Also the $1 award is explained by one of the jurors here:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/040209HOUR3.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=talk&SITE_ID=636&STATION_ID=KHOW-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Caplis_and_Silverman&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=Caplis_and_Silverman_Radio_Rewind

The juror on the above recording said it was difficult to put a dollar amount based on loss of reputation. The juror said if Lane had put a dollar amount to the damages it would have influenced the jurors. There was only one juror who was set against any compensation. The juror said because Churchill continued to receive money from CU until 2008 they did not see economic hardship.

[gordym]

62. Explaining the $1 award

As the above KHOW shockjock show shows. One of the jurors saw 2 reasons for the $1 award.

1) Lane did not give an accounting of how much damages should be awarded.
2) Ward Churchill received income from CU until 2008.

The verdict itself shows CU was engaged in a political purge, so the CU regents, and investigative committee are the fakes. Their opinion doesn't mean squat.