<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/us/02churchill.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/us/02churchill.html</a> </p>
<p>The procedural posture of this is interesting from a lawyer's point of view. That it's a jury trial as to findings of fact about academic research and publication is also interesting.</p>
<p>Aside from “interesting from a lawyer’s point of view” position, that guy should have been fired long long time ago. It is shameful to have people like this at any institution that has anything to do with teaching.</p>
<p>If the allegations that he fudged his research are supported (and that would be my expectation, but who knows what a jury will do?), then I would definitely not want him teaching in any college in the land. Making odious statements is obnoxious, but if the odious statements are backed up by sound research they shouldn’t be a sole basis for dismissing a tenured professor.</p>
<p>Note that the University didn’t take any action based on his conduct in getting hired in the first place. They should have, and the fact that they did not do so shows why guys like David Horowitz finds criticizing the loony academic left so easy. </p>
<p>Churchill claims to be a member of a Indian tribe - which I guess is at some level accurate because he purchased a card sold by an Indian tribe made available to any one who wanted one - a tourist curio, so to speak, bought for 10 bucks. But he has no genealogical or cultural connections to any Indian tribe (other than the phony ones he invented). Most of us when we lie on employment applications face severe consequences. But in ethnic studies - heck, typical employment standards do not apply. </p>
<p>The American Indian Movement - hardly a right wing organization - dislikes Churchill intensely - viewing him as an exploitative fraud. They in fact refer to him as Walking Eagle - so full of ___ he cannot fly. </p>
<p>And the silly part of this is that there are faculty all over the country who stand strongly behind Churchill’s conduct. So much for integrity. And frankly, it hurts the institutions - integrity is vital.</p>
<p>I know nothing about this guy’s research and alleged fraud but my guess is that his outrageous statements about 9/11 encouraged third parties to dig up some dirt from his past and bring it to the attention of the university. That puts the administration in a tight spot- do they investigate or sweep it under the rug? You could argue it both ways. But there is no doubt about one thing- tenure does not confer absolute protection.</p>
<p>I don’t believe his statements after 9/11 should have any bearing at all on the decision to fire him.</p>
<p>I hope that at the end his statements after 9/11 will result in decision to fire him, whatever the claimed reason is. I would strongly object to my kid taking classes from person like this. He should be in prison for treason.</p>
<p>I agree that his statements about 9/11 should not get him fired. However, his research “methods” should. </p>
<p>I simply disagree with his lawyer that it would be a victory for the 1st Amendment for this man to walk back into his classroom as a professor. Nor do I care if this research was reviewed because of what he said about 9/11. If he’d acted professionally and ethically, they’d have nothing on him.</p>
<p>vicarious - that is pretty much what happened: a provocative (and stupid, imho) statement about 9/11 by a liberal professor led to an outcry in a conservative state. Calls like miami’s (put the guy in prison, i’d hate to have him teaching my kid, etc.) by conservatives, including the conservative state’s conservative governor led to the investigation. </p>
<p>I believe the investigation was fair & thorough, and it turned up evidence of academic sloppiness and even misconduct - plagiarism, among other allegations. </p>
<p>If prove true, this is the reason Churchill should be fired, not his 9/11 comments. Those should be protected not only by the first amendment, but by the university’s own standards of freedom of expression. </p>
<p>As to the whole American-Indian thing – that’s a sticky wicket: in addition to his detractors in the Native American community, Churchill also has some very high profile and very vocal supporters. And whether we agree with his methods or ideas, the fact is that Churchill was a figure of influence in Native American studies and considered a dynamic & inspiring teacher by many of his students.</p>
<p>Isn’t his statement about 9/11 falls under category of unethical?
Can we say into faces of Holocust survivors that it was their fault that they got into concentration camps and it is their fault that family members got killed their? Can wel call this statement “freedom of speach” act and completely ethical?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. In fact, this is exactly what freedom of speech is about. The ability to express unpleasant, offensive, or even shocking statements without legal consequences. There is nothing “unethical” about it.</p>
<p>That said, his being fired wasn’t a legal consequence. The first amendment doesn’t ensure him job security.</p>
<p>Yup. Agreed with tetrahedron. </p>
<p>And speaking of the Holocaust, let’s not forget it was Jewish survivors in Skokie Illinois who fought for the right of Nazis to march through their neighborhood. Because they felt the Nazis had that right, no matter how heinous their ideology or choice of march setting. Because they felt that if you take away one person’s right to express themselves, soon you may find your own right of self-expression taken away as well.</p>
<p>I’m very interested in the outcome of this case, as a Colorado resident and one with two kids at CU-Boulder.</p>
<p>As I was perusing a news article about closing arguments, I was troubled by this: </p>
<p>Churchill’s attorney, David Lane, told the jury there is no way his client would have lost his job from CU had it not been for the “howling mob” at the university gates who wanted him gone because of the Sept. 11 essay including three regents who voted for his termination and the former governor. </p>
<p>“The regents, the lying liars, and almost all of them got on the stand you heard them lie about what was on the table,” Lane said in his closing arguments. “So they go through this charade of fairness.” </p>
<p>As an attorney and someone who reads cases for a living, the Colorado Supreme Court is very clear that it’s improper for an attorney to charactize a witness’s testimony/character for truthfulness with any form of the word “lie”. So, even if Churchill “wins”, there may be grounds for an appeal by the defendants (I realize a lot more goes into such a reversal by an appellate court than what I have just stated).</p>
<p>The first amendment does not ensure job security but tenure is supposed to protect him from politically motivated firing. This is perhaps the most important function of tenure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the details about the Colorado law on that point.</p>
<p>^^^You’re welcome. As a former DA, this is something that is DRILLED into you as what you don’t say in court. My husband is also an attorney, and he’s become quite skilled at making a really strong inference during his closings that someone isn’t telling the truth without ever using the “L” word. It can be done, and effectively so.</p>
<p>Shortly after 2 p.m. today, [Judge] Naves summoned the attorneys from each side back to court because the jurors had a question. </p>
<p>The jurors asked: "Judge, we are feeling uncomfortable about the damages portion. Would you be able to meet with us to talk about what is required and other things regarding money? And is $0 an option? </p>
<p>Naves replied: “I cannot meet with you. Please re-read the instructions concerning damages if you find for the plaintiff but find no damages (you will have to) find in the sum of $1.” </p>
<p>The adventure continues . . .</p>
<p>(Updates are taken from the Denver Post, gotta give credit where credit is due :))</p>
<p>I assume damages of $1 means he gets his job back. How dispecable! Had a student plagarized, the student would have been expelled. </p>
<p>Also, his comments re “little Eichmans” at the Towers - I actually thought the ethnic group that suffered the most losses that day at the Towers were Irish Americans. The NY Times had an article about the Irish American fire firghters climbing the stairs while the Irish American traders were coming down.</p>
<p>The judge gets to decide whether he gets his job back (I suppose because that is equitable relief, to use a technical legal term).</p>
<p>The question and answer don’t necessarily mean any specific result. Juries are funny things and VERY hard to read until they shuffle back into the court room and the verdict form is read. For example, they asked about awarding $0. That could mean a defense verdict.</p>
<p>Plus, this case is still at the TRIAL stage. No matter who wins, you can expect an appeal.</p>
<p>katliamom - you raise a good point. How can it be that Churchill was a figure of influence in the Native American community? He made false claims to Indian heritage (completely false), manipulated others (including other native Americans) based on that false premise to talk his way into a tenured position at a university despite having only a masters degree from an unaccredited institution (when he received the degree) in Springfield Illinois? How can the echo chamber of academia be such a bunch of willing dupes? Are they so willing to hear what they want to hear they just had to put not only in a tenured position - but a Department Chair as well - which typically requires considerable peer review (which he never was subjected to) to spread the gospel of victimhood and every other negative ism? I am astounded at the complete lack of common sense that was applied. </p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong - I do think studying the plight of Native Americans is vital and important. But let’s do it with stringent academic standards, a sense of balance , and above all, concern for integrity. None of that existed here. And the fact that there are professors who still support this guy blows my mind.</p>