President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 03, 2009 01:34 AM UTC
56 Comments
Then burst out laughing after reading.
1. Ward Churchill’s attorney fees: $750,000
2. CU’s own attorney fees: $500,000
3. Having Churchill back as a professor who can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants from now until retirement without CU being able to so much as lift a finger against him: Priceless.
Thanks a lot, Bill Owens – you idiot!
Here’s the testimony the jurors heard about Owens’ role after the controversy over Churchill’s 9/11 remarks erupted:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Owens denied it when he testified. Churchill’s attorney Lane told the jury in his closing remarks that Owens was a “liar.”
The jury ruled in Churchill’s favor.
….he could be reinstated at CU and/or receive back pay. So you may want to save your dancing for another grave.
but doesn’t CU owe attorney’s fees in a case like this?
It was never about the damages, it was about the legality of CU firing him, so this seems to me just the right kind of victory for academic freedom and free speech.
Yes it was a bad reason that got it started. And it reflects very badly on the university that they had been told many times that Churchill was a charlatan and did noting.
But the bottom line is that his work product shows that he should have gotten the boot – and should have gotten it a long time ago. Having the wrong reason kick off the investigation does not change the fact that he should not be at any University.
Lane intends to file a brief seeking “hundreds of thousands” of dollars on attorneys’ fees. In addition, Naves may decide to award Churchill the equivalent of what he would have earned for the rest of his academic career at CU instead of ordering him reinstated. Lane, however, believes that CU would have to make a very good case against reinstatement for that to happen. It’s one or the other: a boatload of money or he gets his job back.
and IIRC judge Naves will hear on whether or not Ward will receive a payout or be reinstated at CU. For sure it will be one or the other. 90 % chance it will be a payout, so it will be that plus his $ 1 from yesterday.
Its’ a really bad thing for academic standards. It’s good for me though. I’ll be submitting War and Peace for my PhD dissertation today, and then right after that I’m going to say something really offensive to take cover from under the first amendment.
We have this really classy and world class University; many millionaire professors who have earned their fortunes; and then we have Churchill, Hoffman, …
Soon we’ll be adding illegal aliens paying in-state tuition, while hard working documented aliens are forced to pay out of state rates …
I guess crime does pay. 😉
Huh?
Presuming you are referring to an 18 year old as “hard working” and living in CO, they qualify for in state tuition.
Jeeeeeeez.
Yeah, that was what I read as well…apparently that is a judge decision.
I don’t know how this goes well from here if he gets his job back. How can you let someone who has clearly been convicted of academic malpractice (he got off on a technicality of how the discovery of that malpractice started) resume an academic position. Somehow we are supposed to teach the students proper research technique and not to plagiarize while he is on the faculty?
It would be like having a child molester fired from a job teaching elementary school, cleared on a technicality, and then being reinstated to teach. Hyperbole…yes, but the principle is the same.
…for his essay, not for his alleged academic misconduct. You can disagree obviously. But the jury’s finding was not based on a technicality; it was based on the constitution.
If he was fired for the essay, then it’s wrong.
But how can you keep him at the school now that his level of academic shitbaggery is known?
Sounds like money to me.
and right now, CU is the laughingstock of the entire nation. The jury indeed found that he was fired because of the essay. CU’s transparent attempt to provide cover for this did nothing other than to provide additional publicity to the whole thing–publicity which ended up reflecting very badly on CU.
basically admitted the academic misconduct. The defense’s point was, that doesn’t matter because of the procedural error.
…that CU didn’t fire him because of the academic misconduct (that was merely a ruse). CU fired him because of the essay. The jury so found. That is not a procedural error.
It is just like an illegal search that turns up illegal behavior. A problem with procedure renders the real violation unable to be prosecuted because due process protections are necessary for functional society. This case was about due process (procedure).
The illegal activity had to do with Owen threatening CU’s president if CU didn’t find a way to fire Churchill…..
There was also evidence presented at trial which contradicted some of the charges brought by the review committee…PLUS….the committee did not recommend termination, they recommended sanctions short of termination..
What is your background, bogus???? Do you work for Owens? The Independence Institute???
You seem to have taken my statement literally. Obviously I’m not suggesting that Churchill broke the law (just ethical standards of his profession). Obviously the law as tried in this case was about the process that CU went through and their motive for that process.
But the analogy holds for the broader point. Whether or not Churchill is actually guilty of the ethical violations is irrelevant if the process through which the evidence of such is discovered is illegitimate. That is what the verdict says. Thus the verdict is commenting on the process/procedure.
In his closing, Churchill’s attorney David Lane went out of his way to point out that the plaintiff’s side (Churchill’s) brought in witnesses certified by the judge as experts to back up Churchill’s scholarship, and he called CU’s witnesses “hobbyists.” Lane said that the plaintiff’s side didn’t have to do that, but did so to counter the defense’s (CU’s) claims. Lane argued that even if the jury members found CU’s claims had merit, if the 9/11 essay played any part at all in why Churchill was fired, then the jury had to find in Churchill’s favor.
OK, I agree.
Assuming David Lane took this case as a one-third contingency fee case, does his firm receive $0.33 or $0.34?
Because this is a federal discrimination case, David Lane will probably get three quarters of a MILLION dollars before this is all over.
I listened to an interview with one of the jurors.
What an absolute idiot. I grieve for the future of the Republic.
Ward’s such a clown, and I’m not threatened by him. He can talk about all the chickens roosting he wants and it doesn’t endanger me at all.
But, the whole thing is such a bad joke. A white man who has basically lied about nearly every piece of his personal history, academic credentials, and the fact that he’s Native American gets tenure at a great school, where he continues to act like a total bully and plagiarize, ghostwrite and then self-accredit.
He then writes a dumb essay that angers even dumber people, and that has now somehow excused him from being a complete fraud in the eyes of some twenty-something-Phish-fan jurors who said in an interview that they thought it ‘unfair’ that they were ‘forced’ to come up with damages to be rendered after their verdict.
We Americans have so much idle time on our hands that we’re now a completely soft nation of self-loathing idiots.
God help us.
who’s lies extracted billions of dollars in our country’s treasure, not to mention 1000’s of our children’s deaths, 10’s of thousands of maimed for lifes of our military and 100,000’s of innocent Iraqi’s deaths.
Spare me your sanctimonious bullshit.
Who’s the clown. You’re a joke.
Why you and Crispin Glover are never spotted in the same place.
QED
(and then claiming via “QED” that your self serving block quote proves something!), leads you to the same degree of discovery as you exhibit in your “world class” (snark…in case anyone was wondering)postings here, I can only wait with bated breath to pile more ridicule upon your worthless carcass.
Get some rest. You seem to be free associating.
I’m just back from HI and 4 hours ahead of you. Get used to it.
What Churchill said was ridiculous, protected speech, and sensational. However, in the “left wing media” driven environment, far less ridiculous and ultimately far less costly post-9/11 America (under the guise of patriotic retribution sold as “honor”) than Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld/Rice gibberish. The results of their “free speech” are the actual atrocities of Iraq and Afghanistan we’ve had to endure, as opposed to the rhetorical idiocies of an otherwise respectable professor.
Why didn’t you just say that first?
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that what Churchill said in his essay was protected.
But I also happen to think that if you get caught plagiarizing because you draw attention to yourself by being ridiculous, that you shouldn’t get to keep a teaching job.
I also understand what you’re saying about Iraq, I just disagree, but at least you made your point without being insane about it. At some point you’re going to find it useful to be able to articulate arguments without having to bring up George Bush and Iraq.
like what GWB did….and yet, you don’t get it, is what astounds me. In your mind, Churchills lies and transgressions are somehow bringing down the Republic, when in actuality, GWB’s lies and incompetence actually DID put our country on the brink of destruction!
How thick skulled can you be, LB?
is a complete idiot. And a horrible person to boot. When people don’t agree with him, he shouts them down, calls them names, and when asked questions he can’t reasonably answer, he responds with more ridiculous questions to shift the burden of sounding intelligent away from himself.
Take it from a current student of CU Boulder–this guy is not a worthy teacher. Free speech does not apply when the government is paying your salary to help shape young minds. You cannot use your post as a platform for your own political beliefs. What he said was atrocious, but he’s guilty of plagiarism and falsification which should disqualify him from ever being employed as an ‘educator’ at a public institution.
And ‘Sir Robin,’ you make no sense. ‘Brink of destruction’ can in no way describe the side effects of the War on Terror, although it may yet apply to those of the insane spending spree of Barack Obama. And the information provided by George Bush was not a lie–it was consistent with the intelligence every single foreign government had at the time. In fact, Bill Clinton made it official U.S. policy to support a regime change in Iraq for those same reasons. It’s called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Do yourself a favor and read up on it.
Somewhat of a masochistic title, whatever. The Iraq Liberation Act’s stated purpose was, “to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.” It was not a blank check to wage an illegal war against a sovereign country. I’m more familiar with the intent of the Act than you, as it doesn’t mention “regime change” at all. In fact, the Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act. Do yourself a favor and read it. Here’s a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…
You don’t think that Republican economic policies, including waging war while asking for no national sacrifice, indeed, while lowering taxes, created the ground for this condition? Even Warren Buffet had said the economy has fallen off a cliff. 650,000 more jobs lost in March. It’s a global crises, and you don’t have a clue.
Your statement that “Free speech does not apply when the government is paying your salary to help shape young minds.” is frankly, ludicrous. You’re obviously no student of the constitution, which would make you a perfect candidate for the Young Republicans.
What DO you know about American imperialism, militarism, and corporate driven bad foreign policy (under both parties)that led to 9/11 and the comments of Churchill? Back to school with you.
Signed,
Sir Robin
Who the fuck on that campus taught you this?
That statement is UnAmerican and undermines the Constitution of the United States…
While performing one’s duties, public or private employer, one does not have a freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to private entities generally, as it relates specifically to governmental action. The freedom of speech is a lot more narrow than people seem to think of it.
Here’s the rub. If CU was a private school, Churchill could be gone in a heartbeat, even for political comments unrelated to the job. But since it is public it becomes an arm of the government and so his private speech is protected.
So here’s the question, did his essay identify him as a professor at CU? If so, there would be good reason to fire him. He wouldn’t be making the claim as a private citizen but as an employee.
Your argument is bogus, bondo. First of all, CU is a part of the government, so its legitimate restrictions on the free speech of its employees have to do with maintaining the privacy of personnel records and other government business. The so-called “whistle blower” protection legislation allows government employees to disclose information about government business which would otherwise be considered not open to the public.
Also, public employees can not claim to be speaking as public employees for the particular public agency without authorization to do so.
Because the civil service, both state and federal, are considered politically neutral, there are some restrictions on partisan political activity by public employees. Although this is far more liberal today than in the past.
None of these circumstances apply to Churchill. For the following reasons:
1) Professors, instructors, etc., at public institutions of higher learning are “contractual employees” They have a contract which spells out the conditions of their tenure and which includes the right to “academic freedom,” So the law which applies is the law of contracts. Churchill’s essay did NOT violate his contract with CU. That was his contention and the jury concurred. CU violated its contract with Churchill by compromising his contractual right to free speech.
2) “Academic freedom” is a concept which derives from the First Amendment and which protects higher education teachers and research scientists and allows for the free expression and examination of all ideas which is essential.
3) Professors at private universities also have contracts which guarantee “academic freedom.”
That simply is a false statement.
4) With one notable exception. The Vatican has stipulated that professors/instructors at Catholic Universities must toe the Vatican line, have to sign some kind of pledge to do so, and can be fired if they do not. I think that there have been a few cases of such dismissal. But, for the most part, it has just been a intimating fact of life on catholic campuses.
You are entitled to your opinion, bondo, but not your own facts.
I’m not familiar with the law as exactly written, but it sounds like the right verdict, unfortunately. I happen to agree with LB’s assessment of Churchill 100%, and also with the fact that CU a) never should have given him tenure and b) they should have shitcanned his fraudulent ass years ago. The allegations of plagiarism were old news by the time 9/11 happened. Fact is, no one at CU cared until Churchill’s stupid essay was publicized and created a big stink. Oh, all of a sudden they want to check those allegations out? A coincidence? No, it was clear that Churchill was finally too hot to handle. He was fired for his opinion.
The whole thing stinks. The politics of academia were revealed for the whole world to see. CU’s reputation will reel from this blow for decades. It makes me glad that I decided against grad school and a career in academia all those years ago.
I find Churchill despicable, I find him boorish and a fraud. But he was fired because of what he wrote, and then CU began looking for reasons. Sorry, can’t abide by that.
Personally, I hope he goes away, he doesn’t deserve the job, but CU FU’d.
Have you? Didn’t think so.
If you had, tell us how any reasonable juror could NOT have found in favor of Churchill?
CU lost this case the moment Bill Owens opened his big fat yap. Ward Churchill is Owens’ illegitimate child.
The is very common in civil law suits. Jambalaya correctly states that he may be reinstated and receive back pay.
…couldn’t the university then fire him specifically for plagiarism? They certainly wouldn’t have any trouble making an airtight case by now.
He’ll be right back in court claiming “retaliation.” And he’ll have a damn good case.
For die-hard anti-Churchhillians, the $1 damage award is mighty thin gruel indeed, measured in nano-millimeters. Fact is, not only did CU lose its case, it also lost a good bit of any academic reputation it might have had. The jury in effect came to the obvious conclusion that the school’s faculty bowed to the Buffalo Stampede encouraged by Bill Owens and other blow-hards–reinforced by threats of a funding cut-off–to fire a tenured professor for what amounted to an overly liberal use of the copy-and-paste function in his word processor, or an erroneous footnote (Nobel Prize for footnotes anyone?). If Churchill is so disreputable, how did he come to have tenure in the first place, to say nothing of a chairmanship?
If memory serves, CU lost its national reputation as the leading Party School a few years ago. I’m unaware of any evidence that it ever had a reputation for academics, especially given the state’s frugal financing. So, what’s left? Ah, of course…Great Weather!
If Churchill is so disreputable, how did he come to have tenure in the first place, to say nothing of a chairmanship?
This was in CU’s rush to get a real “Indian” at CU. They waived all requirements including the fact he had no PhD, and never checked to see if he was. They never checked his work either – they just rammed it through when he was hired. Ward checked the box for native american in his application. CU allowed itself to get duped hard in the name of political correctness, so CU definitely has culpability in this whole Wardo fiasco.
How come CU could apparently never find a single case in the entire history of the University where a professor was fired for academic misconduct?
Answer: there are LOTS of hack professors out there who write all kinds of mind-numbing bullcrap and get away with it because none of their peers cares.
They only care when the Governor of Colorado suddenly threatens to yank the entire university’s funding in a blatant effort to punish someone for offensive political views.
The jury’s decision needed to be unanimous; the damages, as well:
http://www.denverpost.com/brea…
So many of the posts here reflect profound ignorance of this nation’s history, and display a conformity of opinion that is disappointing. It demonstrates the need for Ward Churchill.
Briefly, the United States government, after conquering Indian nations and taking their lands by right of conquest, violated treaties which which were designed to regulate the relationship between conquered Indian peoples and the US government. The US government did everything possible to destroy Indian culture, and it could be argued, to eliminate Indian peoples.
One of the more insidious recent strategies was to force assimilation on Indians. It was common practice, for example, on the Navaho reservation for the Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel to “round up” five year olds, by forcibly removing them from their families and putting them in boarding schools. I saw that happen myself. It was common practice into the seventies. You guys think that was okay?? And if not, what is the proper academic response to such practices? Directed rage? Maybe you can begin to understand where Churchill is coming from.
There was no such thing as “ethnic studies” as an academic discipline until the late seventies/eighties. Most minorities went into education because it was a guaranteed job and in order to to get that degree they renounced their own cultures. Ethnic studies were a consequence of the civil rights movement and were an attempt to begin to understand the history of this country from the viewpoint of the “conquered and enslaved” not the major culture.
When Churchill was hired to head the first Ethnic Studies Department at CU, I don’t think that any university ( and I may be wrong) was offering a doctorate in “Ethnic Studies.”
I deplore what happened on 9/11. I deplore terrorism. I know that domestic terrorism destroys countries. Churchill’s use of free speech is the best defense of the Constitution of the United States which is the only thing which keeps us a free people…..struggling to be a just people.
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/…