A Radical Takes the Stand

Ward "Little Eichmanns" Churchill wants his job back.

Katherine Mangu-Ward | April 6, 2009

Denver—Old hippies with gray-streaked ponytails, sporting their best Indian radical-chic finery, arrived early and waited in a marble hallway of the District Court here, chowing down on breakfast burritos from the cafeteria. They came to support Ward Churchill—you could tell by their "I Am Ward Churchill" buttons—in his wrongful-termination lawsuit against his former employer, the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Already a big man in his own field of Native American studies, Mr. Churchill achieved national notoriety in 2005 when an essay he wrote on the afternoon of 9/11 resurfaced. He had described some of the people who died in the World Trade Center that day as "little Eichmanns," a reference to a technocrat who facilitated the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany. The essay's gist was that, on that day, America got what was coming to it.

An uproar inevitably followed. But something else followed as well: a close look at Mr. Churchill's academic career. Charges of shoddy scholarship, false credentials and even plagiarism surfaced. Eventually, the University of Colorado let Mr. Churchill go. His lawsuit is the final chapter in this drama.

And so the aging activists gathered here. Mr. Churchill walked among them in the hallway outside the courtroom on Wednesday, eating a burrito. He could be overheard chatting about traffic and politely inquiring about the well-being of one of his more prominent supporters, attorney Lynne Stewart, currently out on bail after being convicted in 2005 of passing messages between her client, Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, and a terrorist organization.

Mr. Churchill's family was here, too. On Wednesday, Natsu Taylor Saito, Mr. Churchill's wife and an ethnic-studies professor at the University of Colorado, was called to the stand. As the storm broke over Mr. Churchill's essay, titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," the department (in which Mr. Churchill also taught) received many threats, she said, and no university support. She also spoke of her family's exhaustion and despair at being left alone to defend themselves.

Whether the university offered the ethnic-studies department "support" or not, it is certainly true that the administration did not, at first, rush to defend Mr. Churchill's First Amendment rights. At the time, the Colorado legislature had called the essay "evil and inflammatory"; Gov. Bill Owens had denounced it, too. At first, the Regents of the University of Colorado issued an apology and promised an inquiry into Mr. Churchill's actions. Eventually, it determined that Mr. Churchill had every right to say what he had said.

By this time, however, Mr. Churchill's offensive essay had goaded angry readers to examine his larger role as a scholar and activist. A few raised legitimate concerns about the quality of his scholarship. To take three examples: Mr. Churchill has long contended that Capt. John Smith or his agents, in the 17th century—and later the U.S. military—handed out smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans with genocidal intent, but he supported his claim by citing only the Native American "oral tradition" of the Wampanoag and Mandan tribes. Mr. Churchill also plagiarized the work of a Canadian professor. And finally, he ghostwrote an essay and then cited it in his own work as third-party confirmation of his views. As a succession of people testified this week, once such complaints had been submitted to the university in writing, administrators were duty-bound to investigate. They appointed a committee to do so, and it found enough truth in the charges to dismiss Mr. Churchill in 2007. He filed suit the next day.

Without the controversy over the 9/11 essay, would Mr. Churchill have been fired over otherwise unrelated charges of academic sloppiness and dishonesty? Mr. Churchill and his lawyers say "no" and demand that he be reinstated. In the second sentence of its report, the university's investigative committee admits that there is no way to separate the original furor from the subsequent investigation, noting "its concern regarding the timing and, perhaps, the motives for the University's decision to initiate these charges at this time." Still, it asserts that Mr. Churchill's scholarly malfeasance was real and serious.

From the stand, Todd Gleason, the dean of Arts and Sciences, noted that no academic inquiry originates from strictly neutral ground: "It's only common sense to expect that the source of most complaints against a faculty member is going to be someone who nine times out of 10 has a personal or professional disagreement with the author." Pure motives can be in short supply, even in the supposedly collegial world of higher education. And which is worse: To check out some footnotes after an inflammatory essay brings shame on your profession, or to submit a complaint about a colleague's work after he snubs you in the faculty lounge?

As the specifics of his academic fraud started to circulate in 2006, Mr. Churchill began to lose support among his colleagues. Fewer and fewer signatures appeared on each new petition circulated on his behalf. Mr. Churchill has periodically expressed surprise that his friends in the ivory tower sided against him. And perhaps he is right to wonder why they were suddenly so preoccupied with rigorous, bureaucratic adherence to university policy, after he had enjoyed so many years of promotions and awards in the ethnic-studies department without regard for the usual credentialing and publication requirements.

Mr. Churchill, for his part, remains unrepentant. On the stand, he repeated his position that the attack on the World Trade Center was "perfectly predictable," saying: "When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann." And he refused to acknowledge that the objections to his scholarship had merit, explaining that history written by white men is full of lies and that he is simply trying to correct for that historical imbalance. The "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire," dead in the World Trade Center, were legitimate targets, Mr. Churchill insisted, while he is an innocent victim. Perhaps, instead, it was simply that Mr. Churchill's own chickens finally came home to roost.

Katherine Mangu-Ward is associate editor at Reason magazine. This article first appeared in The Wall Street Journal on March 27, 2009.

Comments

JB|4.6.09 @ 4:35PM|#

All of his other faults aside, people get fired all the time for saying stupid things.

If you want more insulation, don't work for the government. Work at a private institution where taxpayers are not forced at gunpoint to pay your salary.

T|4.6.09 @ 4:39PM|#

Didn't we already hammer this out last week?

Janet|4.6.09 @ 4:44PM|#

He shouldn't be allowed to work anywhere because he said things that are not politically correct.

|4.6.09 @ 4:44PM|#

I'm just curious; is he as unpopular with Indians as he is with everybody else?

-jcr

|4.6.09 @ 4:47PM|#

"with Indians as he is with everybody else?"

Native Americans

|4.6.09 @ 4:52PM|#

He won his case. Why? Because in university "victim studies" departments, it's not about the originality or quality of your publications. It's about your political activism. Professors on his side of campus are not expected to meet academic standards.

In short, he was fired for what he was hired to do. If UoC didn't want a loudmouth political activist who offended the parents of every student, they shouldn't have made that his job description.

ChrisO|4.6.09 @ 4:58PM|#

The real injustice here is taxpayers being forced to subsidize "ethnic studies" departments at public universities. You can't hire the circus and then complain that it has clowns.

|4.6.09 @ 5:01PM|#

There's an evil part of me that would want to see what would happen if they had offered his job back on the condition that every non-white professor at the University be fired.

|4.6.09 @ 5:03PM|#

Native Americans

Every Indian I know calls Indians "Indians". I will continue to do so.

-jcr

My Ass Can Singh|4.6.09 @ 5:19PM|#

"I'm just curious; is he as unpopular with Indians as he is with everybody else?"

Oh, yes. very unpopular.

Spotted Toad|4.6.09 @ 5:23PM|#

Ward Churchill should be permanently barred from teaching, and then summarily frog prepped.

|4.6.09 @ 5:26PM|#

The jury has spoken.

One more datum supporting my assertation that Americans are too stupid for self government.

hmm|4.6.09 @ 5:37PM|#

You can say whatever you want. It's the reactions of those around you that may pose a problem.

|4.6.09 @ 5:51PM|#

I'm rather shocked by the number of libertarians (and liberals elsewhere) whose arguments basically amount to "His words went too far. He got what was coming to him."

Whatever happened to free speech being about protecting the most abhorrent speech most of all?

At any rate the jury heard all of the facts and agreed with me.

The real crime is Churchill's essay didn't provoke much thought, just a lot of lynch mobs.

Chad|4.6.09 @ 5:57PM|#

Tony, Mr Churchill has every right to say whatever he likes. He also has every right to be unemployed.

If you are going to be a jackhole, you have to expect that you will make enemies, and they will find dirt on you.

hmm|4.6.09 @ 6:00PM|#

"I'm rather shocked by the number of libertarians (and liberals elsewhere) whose arguments basically amount to "His words went too far. He got what was coming to him."

It could be rooted in the same freedom a business owner has to fire any asshole he wants. Like I said above. You can say anything you want. It's the reaction of the people around you that may cause you a problem.


You have the right to stand in the hood and scream racial slurs, and the people that beat you senseless will be in the wrong. But you are still going to get your ass handed to you.

|4.6.09 @ 6:03PM|#

The left is so eager to poke the right in the eye with something sharp, they don't care how much shit they get on them finding a stick.

Paul|4.6.09 @ 6:04PM|#

And finally, he ghostwrote an essay and then cited it in his own work as third-party confirmation of his views.

In my opinion, this would be his worst transgression. This is a firing-squad level offense.

|4.6.09 @ 6:05PM|#

"with Indians as he is with everybody else?"

then
"Native Americans"

I say

"immigrants from Siberia"

It's more truthful :^)

Paul|4.6.09 @ 6:15PM|#

Without the controversy over the 9/11 essay, would Mr. Churchill have been fired over otherwise unrelated charges of academic sloppiness and dishonesty? Mr. Churchill and his lawyers say "no" and demand that he be reinstated.

I guess the question becomes, if there hadn't been a fire in Mr. Churchill's house, would the fire department have discovered the meth lab he had in his basement?

We may be able to say "no", but that doesn't change the illegality of the meth lab. So this, in essence, has become an illegal search-and-siezure issue.

Mr. Churchill clearly has integrity problems, but technically, we can't do anything about it because the discovery of said integrity issues are "fruit of the poison tree".

|4.6.09 @ 6:15PM|#

In my opinion, this would be his worst transgression. This is a firing-squad level offense.

That's terrible.

Nativist American|4.6.09 @ 6:16PM|#

"with Indians as he is with everybody else?"

then
"Native Americans"

I say

"immigrants from Siberia"

It's more truthful :^)

I think nearly all of them were born here.
Except the ones who keep sneaking across the borders!

|4.6.09 @ 6:17PM|#

I agree! This SugarFree fellow is quite astute!

Paul|4.6.09 @ 6:17PM|#

And he refused to acknowledge that the objections to his scholarship had merit, explaining that history written by white men is full of lies and that he is simply trying to correct for that historical imbalance.

Actually, I take it back. This is his worst transgression. Spreading lies to 'balance other lies' is not moral high ground. It's the lowest of the low ground.

Paul|4.6.09 @ 6:21PM|#

This would have been a better picture of Mr. Churchill.

http://uglydemocrats.com/democrats/United-States/Ward-Churchill/Ward-Churchill-Gun.jpg

|4.6.09 @ 6:45PM|#

Some of you are operating upon the premise that it has been proven that the guy lied and plaigirized. I see no such proof offered in the article. Allegations, yes. Proven in a court of law, no.

|4.6.09 @ 6:54PM|#

Libertymike: Do we really need a court of law to rule on Ward Churchill's art? Face it, the guy's a fraud, and if academia can't fire frauds, we're in deep doodoo.

|4.6.09 @ 7:00PM|#

Tony, lots of right wingers have been fired for making insensitive comments. I seems to recall something about a radio shock jock recently.
The right in general is subject to far more harassment and general suppression of their views than the left is on college campuses.

Last month, an anti-abortion group set up some posters on the mall depicting aborted fetuses. What did they get? Vocal protests from pro-Choice groups insisting that students "should not be forced to look at graphic images", and that the display should be taken down.

Do I see you out there defending the rights of anti-abortion groups to display offensive imagery on campus? No?

You'll get more credibility when you defend free speech rights for people you don't agree with. Instead of people whom, let's face it, you don't have the guts to to admit you do.

JB|4.6.09 @ 7:03PM|#

Who has a job where they can call their employer a douchebag?

|4.6.09 @ 7:12PM|#

PapayaSF-

Hey, do you think that I like this guy? Do you think that the average anarcho-free enterprise-individualist is going to like Churchill's world view?

My take is aimed at the hyprocisy. IF we were really concenred about rooting out frauds in the academy, why did we hear so little about Joe Biden's cheating and plaigirizing? Or GWB's legacy admission to both Yale and Harvard's B-school?

|4.6.09 @ 7:13PM|#

JB-

Manny, for several years, before being traded.

|4.6.09 @ 7:38PM|#

And finally, he ghostwrote an essay and then cited it in his own work as third-party confirmation of his views.

That is pretty staggering. He would be fired in 5 seconds in a real dept (i.e. technical) at a decent university.

Paul|4.6.09 @ 7:45PM|#

Libertymike,

Read this.

Ward didn't even deny plagiarism, he merely had an "excuse" for it. An excerpt:

But the best test of a plagiarism defense in academia
has to be whether or not a professor would
ever accept such an excuse from a student. What
if a professor catches Joe Student in apparent
plagiary from his classmate Janie, and Joeʹs excuse
is: "It's not plagiarism because I wrote
Janie's term paper for her"? That would mean an
"F" for both Joe and Janie.

|4.6.09 @ 7:46PM|#

>Some of you are operating upon the premise that it has been proven that the guy lied and plaigirized. I see no such proof offered in the article. Allegations, yes. Proven in a court of law, no.

Does it have to be proven in a court of law though? We aren't talking about a criminal charge here. If there is enough reason to believe these allegations, then that could still be considered reason to fire him, especially considering that he admits to the John Smith thing.

Also, hilariously, this man has no confirmed Native American ancestry. And he was granted tenure in a "special opportunity position", which is a Colorado effort to get a more "diverse" (meaning diverse skin color, of course) faculty. Now it's not absurd to want an Indian to teach Indian studies. But the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News have each done research into his ancestors, and everyone they have uncovered has been white.

hmm|4.6.09 @ 8:24PM|#

"Who has a job where they can call their employer a douchebag?"

I have and I did. I wasn't fired either!!

It pays to not be a hack or a dipshit. Churchill is both. If you produce and aren't a moron you gain leeway with those that employ you. When you become a liability above that leeway you are fired. He did just that he became more of a liability than he was worth to those employing him and he was fired. Tenure is a bullshit practice that has been abused repeatedly. If the people agree with him he has more than enough avenues in the private sector to posit his hypothesis and he should not need an academic shield to hid behind.

He talked smack and his bullshit was called.

Right to work. End of discussion.

|4.6.09 @ 8:41PM|#

Libertymike, I don't think legacy admissions and Biden's case are at the same level at all, and I don't see enough equivalent cases elsewhere to justify a charge of hypocrisy. This is pure academic fraud and plagiarism by a professor, which should always be firing offenses.

The Angry Optimist |4.6.09 @ 9:17PM|#

Some of you are operating upon the premise that it has been proven that the guy lied and plaigirized. I see no such proof offered in the article. Allegations, yes. Proven in a court of law, no.

I have a much lower standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "a preponderance of the evidence". For example, if a buddy of mine were to tell me he found random text messages in his girlfriend's phone, that she made lame excuses as to why she was late coming home and he sometimes smelled cologne on her, I would say she's a cheating whore without even weighing the evidence.

Thomas|4.6.09 @ 10:30PM|#

LibertyMike,

The University administration performed an investigation.

MNG|4.6.09 @ 10:40PM|#

"He won his case. Why? Because in university "victim studies" departments"

Oh shit this gets stupid. How many members of university "victim studies" departments were on the jury in his case? How many? Oh yeah, none.

"One more datum supporting my assertation that Americans are too stupid for self government."

Maybe they just had a lot of information than you and were asked to decide on a narrow question of law?

"Tony, lots of right wingers have been fired for making insensitive comments."

Irrelevant. The government as an employer must obey certain things that private employers may not, like the 1st Amendment. And there is the whole idea of tenure, which serves a useful purpose and was not followed in this case.

I've thought Churchill was a fool ever since I had to read some of his stuff in grad school. They guy did not have the academic heft to justify giving him tenure or a full time position at a major university. It was a farce that he had his position.

Having said that, he was targeted for an investigation because of his views, and investigation that is not applied to other CU faculty members who don't offer up such controversial (and asinine I would say) speech. We want out professors to be able to speak and publish on controversial subjects without fear of reprisals, overall it makes our society better, stronger, and more free.

Those of us on the thread were not in that courtroom where each side got a thorough chance to produce all relevant information and decided that his rights as a tenured professor had been violated.

MNG|4.6.09 @ 10:42PM|#

"I have a much lower standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "a preponderance of the evidence""

Well thank goodness you don't have the power to take from someone a property interest (which one has when they have a contracted for job as Churchill had) with such a view. But for me, I think due process is warranted before deprivation of property.

I agree we don't need such standards to decide, as a matter of public opinion and concern that Churchill is a silly fool. But in order for a body to take a property interest of his, or anyone, I demand a little more...

B|4.6.09 @ 11:42PM|#

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann."

So going into business to make money is the moral equivalent of facilitating the murder of 6 million jews. Christ, they should have just argued they fired him because he is a fucking moron, which he clearly is.


"The real crime is Churchill's essay didn't provoke much thought, just a lot of lynch mobs."

No, the real crime is that the a top-tier university would hire a plagiarizing fraud who engaged in shoddy scholarship, all while misrepresenting himself as a Native American.

|4.6.09 @ 11:44PM|#

MNG,
What Churchill wrote was (essentially) that Americans deserve to be killed. It was vitrually incitement to murder. There are laws against such things.
No he didn't literally say "Yay terrorists, go kill more Americans. They deserve it."
But he may as well have.

|4.7.09 @ 6:41AM|#

It was a rather mixed ruling. While the jury agreed that he was wrongfully terminated, the jury also gave Chuchill the finger by only awarding him one dollar.

My interpretation of the jury's findings:

Yes, Mr. Churchill, while we are bewildered that your pathetic works had not been evaluated before, we agree with you that the reason your work was examined was because of the notoriety and embarrassment brought on the University because of your political statements.

However, just to make sure you understand that we think you are a loathsome douche bag that invented "facts" from thin air, plagiarized and are a serial liar. Just to separate this opinion from our aforementioned position, we are going to award you only one dollar for damages. You should look at our award of a lonely dollar not as vindication but just as a waiter that is left just two cents as a tip should look at his tip; as our total and complete contempt for your academic work.

Marian Kechlibar|4.7.09 @ 7:05AM|#

I used to work on the Prague university (Charles University) in the mathematical faculty, dept. of algebra.

Although I was not a stellar scientist, I wouldn't dream of daring to perform such frauds as Ward Churchill had done. They would fire me in a second, and rightfully so.

MNG: I want to make clear if I understood you: so you support the view that employers do not have the right to fire people from their job positions, because, in your view, job position is something close to your property?

|4.7.09 @ 7:26AM|#

No sympathy for Churchill here, but why is the phrase "Oral Tradition" in scare quotes, Katherine? Did you intend to come off so condescending? Seems to me anyone researching American Indian culture would deal with oral tradition quite a bit and this would not be uncommon at all within that field.

MNG|4.7.09 @ 7:55AM|#

Marian
No, only when the employer and employee have a contract for ongoing employment. If Churchill was a tenured professor then he had a contract, tied into the faculty handbook (employee handbook in academe) which gave him an ongoing interest in his job as long as he himself abided by the same contract. To then take action against him in violation of that contract was a deprivation of his property interest in that job either in violation of his contract or contrary to due process.

If you hire me but I negotiate a contract with you stipulating that you will employe me for x amount of time as long as I continue to do y and z, and you fire me although I have done y and z and abided by the contract, then you have broken our contract.

Since Churchill's employer was a government it is bound by the 14th Amendment not to deprive him of this property interest (tenured professors have the reasonable expectation they will be rehired yearly even if they do not have such stipulated expressly [which they usually do] in their contracts), and so to the extent that it acted against him in an arbitrary or unique way he has a case too.


Look, I loathe the stupid guy. But it's the principle that matters. I thought libertarians were into contracts and protections of arbitrary deprivation of property even for creeps...

9/11 = FREEDOM !!!|4.7.09 @ 8:03AM|#

I don't get it. You libertarians claim to be against government. "Terrorism" is a great excuse for government to grab power. And yet you're whining about some professor who says something un-PC about 9/11.

|4.7.09 @ 8:22AM|#

Was his tenure not granted on the basis of work now seen as fraudulent? Are contracts involving fraud sacrosanct?

Yeah, yeah... Churchill got his one-dollar vindication. Now let's put this whole affair to good use and start a serious discussion about tenure at state schools. Is it ever in a public institution's best interest to give someone a job for life? Spend a day on campus and you'll see that tenure saves the jobs of the lazy, incompetent, and boorish a 100 times for every poor scholar being fired for unpopular views. It's utter bullshit and my tax dollars already pay for enough bullshit as is.

(And spare me the "top talent" speech. There are tens of thousands of adjunct professors who seem perfectly capable of teaching classes without the magical veil of tenure. It's one big circle jerk at the top when they aren't facing the horrors of a two-and-a-half-hour workday.)

|4.7.09 @ 9:25AM|#

Paul, PapayaSF and TAO-

Paul, thank you for the link. Churchill is a fraud.

PapayaSF, you are right, Churchill's sins speak for themselves and merit firing.

TAO, under the circumstances expressed in your analogy, you and I have the same evidentiary standards.

The Angry Optimist|4.7.09 @ 9:33AM|#

Well thank goodness you don't have the power to take from someone a property interest (which one has when they have a contracted for job as Churchill had)

This statement is completely, entirely and unequivocally false. A job is not a property interest...at all.

Since Churchill's employer was a government it is bound by the 14th Amendment not to deprive him of this property interest

Wrong again. The government doesn't have to abide by the same rules it does with citizens as it does with its employees.

MNG, you can believe what you like, but calling firing a government employee "deprivation of property in violation of due process" is so. legally. ridiculous.

We have a thing called "the laugh test", and this fails.

Marian Kechlibar|4.7.09 @ 9:46AM|#

MNG: OK, this makes more sense to me, albeit I would not use the word "property interest". So, from WC's point of view, his firing was a breach of contract from the university.

However, it still does not pass the laugh test for me, as university positions do not come without requirements. In my country, making up fraudulent research would be a grave breach of the contract - enough to render it null and void. Same if you reached the position on false or plagiarized work.

If this is the case with WC, his lawsuit does not stand a chance, and it would be just if he had to cover the legal expenses of both parties after losing (as it is often done here in Europe).

|4.7.09 @ 10:10AM|#

You'll get more credibility when you defend free speech rights for people you don't agree with. Instead of people whom, let's face it, you don't have the guts to to admit you do.

I do. I'm an ACLU liberal. Whether I agree with Churchill is irrelevant. The fact is, as a tenured professor at a state university, his speech was supposed to be protected. The allegations against him were nothing that haven't been leveled at any number of professors by their critics. It is obvious that his firing was politically motivated, and that's what the jury found.

It is unconstitutional to fire a public employee for extramural speech of which the government disapproves--leaving aside the fact that he was a tenured professor. I have a hard time taking seriously people who claim to cherish liberty, but value the liberty of employers at the exclusion of all other forms.

High Every Body|4.7.09 @ 10:10AM|#

Who is cutting and pasting their defenses of Chavez into their defenses of Churchill?

Everybody gets on guess.

High Every Body|4.7.09 @ 10:11AM|#

Okay, two, but there are two answers too.

|4.7.09 @ 10:15AM|#

Hazel,

What Churchill wrote was (essentially) that Americans deserve to be killed. It was vitrually incitement to murder. There are laws against such things.

He said nothing of the kind. His polemic was radically pacifist. His point was that America has committed great sins--which we tend to conveniently omit from our rendering of history--and that nobody should be surprised when those sins come back to bite us. Agree, disagree, the fact is, if anything, greater deference should have been given to him since his speech implicated the government. This is just the kind of speech that tests whether the first amendment lives up to its charge.

Even if he had said "Americans deserved it," which he didn't, that is not incitement to anything. I might also add that such a sentiment is no more radical than stuff you hear coming from the Right every day, only usually applied to non-Americans or immigrants.

MNG|4.7.09 @ 11:32AM|#

TAO
I guess you have not got to the whole "New Property" section of your casebook on Administrative Law yet TAO.

As usual, I'm happy to bring you up to date where your law school has let you down:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0593_ZO.html

MNG|4.7.09 @ 11:35AM|#

If I have a contract with you that you will employ me at salary x for y amount of time and can only fire me for cause a and b, and you fire for me cause c, then I can sue you for entire amount of x plus some.

And if you are a government employer (and often even when not) if you act to deprive me of my interest in that property in a way that does not comport with certain minimum due process requirements, then I can sue you for violating my 14th Amendment rights and win as well.

Who's laughing now 1L?

|4.7.09 @ 12:00PM|#

This was a very clever jury, who obviously does not think Ward Churchill was wronged in any way.

IF you were to design a verdict that would put an end to this in a way that inflicts maximal humiliation on Churchill and minimal gain, this $1 award would be the way you did it.

The case is effectively closed. Neither side will appeal (the university won't, because they don't want to risk their dollar verdict, and Churchill won't, because he doesn't want to risk his verdict, either).

Case closed. University off the hook, financially. Churchill not enriched, and in fact publicly humiliated.

I call it a win/win.

|4.7.09 @ 2:29PM|#

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann."

I suppose Mr. Churchill teaches for free, and lives a freegan lifestyle out of a cardboard box?

|4.7.09 @ 2:34PM|#

Wow, you guys are missing a lot of facts:
1. He WAS fired for causes A and B (based on the findings of a FACULTY comittee). The only beef is that he wouldn't have been scrutinized except for C. (Referencing MNG's earlier post)
2. The case is not over. A judge will now decide if Churchill gets his job back and/or if he deserves a buttload of money.
3. Most of the jury wanted to award him a substantial amount of money. One holdout led to the one dollar award.
4. He had the kind of due process most of us only dream of. I'm certain that he violated several of the conditions of his employment.

|4.7.09 @ 3:21PM|#

"The allegations against him were nothing that haven't been leveled at any number of professors by their critics."

This is not true. CU received formal complaints from other researchers stating that Churchill had plagiarized their work. I read the report the academic review committee produced and in my opinion (and that of the committee) his actions constituted grounds for revocation of tenure. He plagiarized the work of others; he published under pseudonyms and then cited his own work in support of his research; and he falsified research results. Perhaps I'm naive about what people do over in the humanities, but here on the science side, these sorts of accusations are not leveled at any number of professors. Is the new standard that to retain tenure, all you have to do is publish something sufficiently inflammatory that all other sins must be overlooked?

Now, CU is not without fault here and they deserve much of the criticism that has come their way. They had received complaints about his plagiarism in the past and swept them under the rug because they didn't want to lose their star professor. What bothers me, though, is not that the administration suffers but that the rest of us do. Is this the professional research reputation CU must present to the world?

|4.7.09 @ 9:23PM|#

He said nothing of the kind. His polemic was radically pacifist. His point was that America has committed great sins--which we tend to conveniently omit from our rendering of history--and that nobody should be surprised when those sins come back to bite us.

Bullshit. He called the victims in the WTC "little Eichmanns". Adolph Eichmann was an architect of the Nazi holocaust. He was executed for war crimes.

Assuming that Churchill isn't out there objecting to Eichmann's execution (which he isn't), the only implication that can be drawn from the "little Eichmanns" statement is that Americas are on par with war criminals who deserve to be executed from crimes against humanity.

Churchill is NOT a pacifist. He is pro murder of Americans.

Moreover, America's so-called "sins" depend on one's view of what is right and wrong in history. In particular, the depend on one's view of whether America was on the right or wrong side of the Cold War. The Left - sympathetic to communism as it is, considers opposing Marxism a sin. The rest of us don't.

|4.7.09 @ 9:27PM|#

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann."

I.e. turning a profit is morally equivalent to genocide and war crimes and deserving of a hanging.

If Ward Churchill was the leader of a third world country, he'd be a mass murderer on par with Pol Pot.

Justen|4.8.09 @ 6:40AM|#

The important conclusion to draw from this story: leftists who practice apologetics for terrorists enjoy breakfast burritos. What does that say about the associations that eggs, bacon, hot sauce and tortillas maintain? If only we still had Gitmo to help us answer these questions...

|4.8.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Paul said "Spreading lies to 'balance other lies' is not moral high ground."

I concur!

jg|4.8.09 @ 9:09PM|#

JB asked: "Who has a job where they can call their employer a douchebag?"

Barack Obama.

jg|4.8.09 @ 9:14PM|#

"When you bring your skills to bear for profit, you are the moral equivalent of Adolf Eichmann."

And when those skills are largely things such as bigotry and falsehood, you're also the moral equivalent of Joseph Goebbels, so our buddy Ward gets a two-fer.

When you're also as ludicrous as Bagdad Bob, you get to be Ward Churchill.

Z|4.9.09 @ 7:21PM|#

Hazel Meade - did you wander out of your group home today and find a computer? put the keyboard down and go take your meds. you'll stop hearing those voices in your head soon...