<p>The jurors then had another question: “If all but one jury member can agree on a dollar amount for Question 4, can that person be replaced by another juror?” </p>
<p>[Judge] Naves told them that wasn’t possible.</p>
<p>Remember folks, “damages” here can be in the millions or $1.</p>
<p>mam, I can’t explain how Churchill became a figure of influence other than having a talent for making big noise. As to your comment about the (apparent lack of) stringent academic standards - I can’t disagree. </p>
<p>Personally, I think Churchill got the job probably because at the time there weren’t many people in that field, he was there, he made noise - and got the position he wouldn’t have even a few years later. But once he had it, it was hard for the university to admit that maybe he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.</p>
<p>does anyone else besides me find a weird lack of logic in the defense argument that Churchilll wouldn’t have been investigated if it weren’t for the outcry? My thought is… so what? That still doesn’t justify the alleged misconduct.</p>
<p>It’s like a burglar blaming the homeowner for tripping on a piece of furniture, making a racket, and getting discovered that he was burgling…</p>
<p>One of the most unfortunate issues during the Churchill inquiry was that the question was actually raised as to whether ethnic studies departments should be held to the same academic standards as other departments! </p>
<p>Although unintentional, could the University (and other commentators on the process) have come up with a more condescendingly racist question? I think not. Only in academia. </p>
<p>And ethnic studies really isn’t a new field. Historians, anthropologists and the like should be called to account for a critical examination of ethnic groups. But ethnic studies programs are rarely about critical examination, and are mostly about furthering an agenda (which helps diversity statistics for faculty too). The school is reaping what it has sowed. </p>
<p>By the way, I think his statements should be protected (but not his conduct). In fact, I would call upon him to defend them every day, in a very thorough and empirical way.</p>
<p>The Denver Post is reporting that the jurors have reached a verdict. No details just yet.</p>
<p>thanks coloradomom–please keep us informed</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>Denver Chief District Judge Larry J. Naves will decide whether the former professor can return to his job or receive front pay for years he may have worked at CU in a separate hearing.</p>
<p>Yes, he won his case, but the jury awarded him $1.00 in damages (presumably to his reputation).</p>
<p>Thanks, Hat. Yes, the $1 was for past losses. The original blip I got from the Denver Post didn’t have that crucial bit of information.</p>
<p>I imagine that he would say that this is also very much our fault:</p>
<p>[Video</a> - An Alarming video every Westerner should see - tangle.com](<a href=“Watch Christian Videos at Godtube.com - Today's Trending, Popular Video”>Watch Christian Videos at Godtube.com - Today's Trending, Popular Video)</p>
<p>Jury felt that the University used the academic misconduct charges as a screen to fire him for his comments. Jury must also have felt that the then-Colorado governor put immense pressure on the school to fire Churchill after being told by the school that it couldn’t fire him.</p>
<p>Here’s a fairly balanced presentation of some of the circumstances:</p>
<p>[News:</a> A ($1) Win for Ward Churchill - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/03/churchill]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/03/churchill)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UC was going to be a loser no matter what the verdict. It was impossible to avoid the appearance that political pressure motivated a review way outside the normal peer review processes. That’ll have costs in the future when they try to make hires in fields where the work is political. In addition, they’d hired and promoted Churchill; if his work was as deeply flawed as the lawyers content, it amounts to (best case scenario) an admission that those processes were not very diligent.</p>
<p>OK, I understand that all US citizens that are involed in terrorism training to attack americans on their own soil or anybody in a world are just exercising “free speach”? We should explicitly amend our constituion with this, otherwise it is confusing. We should call our congressman to sponsor bill like this, so nobody will get confused and try to prosecute these terrorists, since it would be just waste of taxpayer money, mind you, taxpayer’s life is irrelevant any more in this country so that people sho engourage terrorism have a right for “free speach”. Thank you for education!</p>
<p>The professor’s comment was a variation of “the chickens have come to roost”. You may or may not agree with that opinion but a statement like that is not the same as training a terrorist. </p>
<p>Since this is not the politics forum I am restricting my comments to the non-political question of whether or not tenured professors can and should be fired for their political views. I would have the same position if the person was being fired for making controversial statements of the opposite political persuasion.</p>
<p>I agree, he was not training terrorists, but he definately was engouging such training.</p>