Remember Ward Churchill? He's the former University of Colorado Ethnic Studies professor fired in 2007 for alleged faulty scholarship. Churchill's work became the subject of investigation after an essay he'd written shortly after the 9/11 attacks came into the focus of right wing media and opportunistic politicians. In 2005 even the courageous (yeah, right) Wisconsin Assembly passed a resolution condemning Churchill.
A University of Colorado committee did find some errors in the thousands of pages of Churchill's writings, but the entire process was so clearly in retaliation for his 9/11 essay that in 2007 I referred to that process as "academia at its worst." Yesterday a Denver jury ruled unanimously that Churchill's termination from UC was in retaliation for the essay. Though the jury refused to award damages, the judge in a separate hearing will determine whether Churchill should be reinstated or paid a lump sum. UC will also have to pay his legal fees.
There is no disagreement that universities should have policies in place that assess scholarship rigorously and hold accountable those professors who fabricate, distort, or engage in other unethical practices. But attorneys for UC were not able to show to the satisfaction of the jury that the investigation of Churchill was fair or would have taken place at all were it not for his controversial 9/11 essay. If the errors in Churchill's scholarly writings were as egregious as the UC's attorney claimed, then he should never have received tenure in the first place.
Churchill's 9/11 essay, especially its analogy of World Trade Center employees with Adolph Eichmann, offended many. But offensive political speech is exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment is designed to protect. If the First Amendment only protects speech that bothers no one, then we really don't need a First Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Tony:
To be accurate, UC MAY have to pay pay his legal fees. To date there has been no order for them to do so and Churchhill's legal team hasn't petitioned for it either.
Winning his case and being awarded $1, with his legal team most likely argeeing to a contingent fee, doesn't automatically net his lawyers their fees from UC.
Douglas,
I could be wrong, but I thought that according to the Civil Right Act of 1964 and later statutes, in Civil Rights cases (which is what Churchill's case was) the legal fees of a prevailing plaintiff had to be covered. To my understanding, the judge has to decide not whether UC should cover Churchill's legal fees, but what constitutes "reasonable" fees. I suppose the judge could decide that Churchill is not entitled to any legal fees, but it would be interesting to see how he would square such a decision with federal law and precedent.
On the other hand, just about everything in the Churchill case has defied precedent so there's no reason the legal fee issue shouldn't do the same.
Thanks.
well, I'm here anyway...
Yeah of course I remember Ward. and Adolf
If some magical force could zap everyone's ability to escalated every thing that comes along into Black and White extremes, crap like this would never happen. But polarizing benefits too many and it's just so nice and fast.
I'm good, he's bad, there we go.
Even just the concept of "Nazi", we're talking about an entire nation of individual's and their response, choices and coping mechanisms in a dangerous political climate and then all-out war. LOL think of the way people suck up to their bosses for trivial reasons, then imagine that if a sadistic so-and-so threatened your family that you would NOT cooperate, but would resist Nazis to the end. ya sure.
So when Churchill said "Eichmann" did he mean exactly what people thought he meant? Did they care? Did WC even really understand Eichmann, or was he just pleased with his own cleverness at an Eichmann analogy. and in this hoo-ha is also probably lost any reflection on Ward's own naughtiness, uz he was. The real "naughtiness" he committed, and that was - he probably was being intentionally inflammatory and over-stating his analogy (participants in the exploitative corporate culture bear some degree of responsibility for the abuses of the leaders even if in distant lands and even if it's just because the "little E's only guilt was in showing up to work. Like if you buy sweat-shop clothes, do you bear guilt for the suffering of the abused who work there, etc)
Anyway W.C.s attempt to create a "teachable moment" and yes, to get publicity maybe went a bit farther than he intended. He figured he was smart enough to deal with the response to his deliberate social jerking. But if you jerk a chain, do you really know if the Beast will turn and bite, or just growl a bit. WC miscalculated maybe.
The way I remember it he was trying to annoy. and I'm thinking he was a bit into visionsof hisown personal glory as crusader (also they tend to get the babes, so win-win for Wardy-poo)
So boo-freakin-hoo Ward, we all have karma. and anyway, he's still a "phenomenon" and he probably likes that. Also please note devoted chick clinging to Ward's manly form i the photo. Yup.
Hell, you know he used his position as professor to make a fuss, did the UC have a duty to be a willing stage for his drama? Haha if they object they are actually propelling Ward's scenario forward. (ward the double-victim now)
pffft! I see no evildoers here, no black and white, just pretty much a bunch of people using each other to their own ends. You know, normal life.
Well that's too much to spell-check, no one will wanna follow along anyway etc etc.
LOL because it's more fun to say
Bad! good!
and also because I drone on and am boring
IN conclusion, Twitter should not have usurped this --> O_o
That was my favorite emoteguy, they are Teh Evil
Post a Comment