Former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill holds up a dollar bill and shouts "Here's the dollar" to the audience after he was awarded $1 in damages from the school in his trial in Denver on Thursday. Photo by Paul Aiken / The Camera / April 2, 2009Huzzah! to the Good Professor!
Oh, and Charlie Brennan (of the now defunct Rocky Mountain News, which led this hateful attempt at character assassination in the first place), please go fuck yourself forthwith - with the largest rolled up newspaper you can find. Bad dog! You have always been a loser and a coward and you always will be. You committed a war crime against the people when you enabled fascist fucks like Governor Owens and CU to BREAK THE LAW in punishing Churchill for exercising free speech. The Constitution protects his right to do that, and by giving Owens and his aparatchik ilk a forum, YOU enabled their crime. Treasonous little shit, ain't cha Chuckie?
Today you and all your witch-hunting scum have gone down in much deserved flames. Prepare to be forever remembered for your traitorous lies, jackass. I own your name now and you're toast.
We won! We won! We won! OH. GOD. JOY! We won! Thank you, Dear Jury of the young. You are all our heroes today.
Churchill wins his case, awarded $1 in damagesReinstatement at CU to be decided at future hearing
By John Aguilar (Contact)
Originally published 10:52 a.m., April 2, 2009
Updated 05:40 p.m., April 2, 2009
Former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill holds up a dollar bill and shouts "Here's the dollar" to the audience after he was awarded $1 in damages from the school in his trial in Denver on Thursday. Photo by Paul Aiken / The Camera / April 2, 2009
Photo by Paul Aiken
Former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill holds up a dollar bill and shouts "Here's the dollar" to the audience after he was awarded $1 in damages from the school in his trial in Denver on Thursday. Photo by Paul Aiken / The Camera / April 2, 2009
Former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill hugs a supporter after he was awarded one dollars damages from the school in his trial in Denver, Colorado Thursday afternoon April 2, 2009 Photo by Paul Aiken / The Camera / April 2, 2009
Sept. 11, 2001: University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill writes a response to the day’s terrorist attacks, saying they were not senseless but a direct result of American policies. The online essay compares victims at the World Trade Center to an infamous Nazi technocrat.
Jan. 26, 2005: The essay catches media attention for the first time after students at Hamilton College in New York protest their school’s invitation to have Churchill speak.
Feb. 3, 2005: CU regents launch an investigation into Churchill’s work to determine if he should be fired.
March 24, 2005: CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano says Churchill’s comments about 9/11 were protected by the First Amendment. But he determines allegations of fraud and plagiarism against Churchill warrant further inquiry by CU’s Standing Committee on Research Misconduct.
May 16, 2006: The investigative panel releases its 124-page report to the public. The group finds serious and recurring problems with Churchill’s work, including plagiarism, fabrication and questionable citations. Most panel members say Churchill should be suspended without pay, and one member says his research misconduct was so egregious that he should be fired.
June 13, 2006: The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct backs the previous panel’s findings of deliberate misconduct and releases its own report. Six of the nine members say Churchill should be dismissed. Two favor suspension without pay for five years, and one recommends suspension without pay for two years.
May 2007: Three members of the university faculty’s Privilege and Tenure Committee recommend suspension. The other two members say he should be fired.
May 25, 2007: CU President Hank Brown recommends in a report to the regents that Churchill be fired.
July 24, 2007: Regents vote 8-1 to fire Churchill.
July 25, 2007: Churchill sues CU in Denver District Court, claiming he was fired for what he wrote in the 2001 essay.
Oct. 2, 2007: Churchill returns to CU to teach a series of unsanctioned classes.
March 9, 2009: The trial of Churchill vs. the University of Colorado begins in Denver District Court.
April 2: Jury rules in favor of Churchill and awards him $1 in damages.
The University of Colorado unlawfully fired Ward Churchill for expressing his political beliefs, a jury decided this afternoon.
The jury of four women and two men awarded the former ethnic studies professor $1 in damages. The dollar amount was largely a symbolic move because the judge instructed the jury to award that amount if they ruled in Churchill's favor but found no damages.
Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves will decide at a separate hearing whether Churchill, 61, is reinstated at CU or given a lump sum of money instead.
Shortly after the verdict was announced, Churchill told reporters that getting his job back was more important than any monetary award.
"I didn't ask for money," said Churchill, who was joined by his attorney, David Lane. "What was asked for and what was delivered was justice."
Ken McConnellogue, spokesman for the CU system, said the $1 award offered "some vindication."
"Mr. Lane told the jury to send a message with a monetary award, and I believe they sent a message with that $1 award," McConnellogue said.
The jury's verdict in favor of Churchill, which came after 10 hours of deliberation, brings to a conclusion a four-year saga that began with the widespread discovery of an essay Churchill had written about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
The case prompted heated debates in the media and on college campuses around the country on the meaning of academic freedom, the limits of free expression and the role of tenure at universities.
In the controversial piece, which Churchill penned during the hours after the attacks, he lambasted American foreign and economic policies and called some of the victims in New York's twin towers "little Eichmanns" -- a reference to the infamous Nazi bureaucrat.
The essay, which remained under the radar until a student at New York's Hamilton College complained about it in advance of a scheduled speech by the professor in January 2005, sparked an immediate firestorm across the country.
CU was bombarded with e-mails and phone calls demanding it fire Churchill for expressing anti-American hate speech and supporting terrorism.
Contributors threatened to withhold donations from the school and parents threatened to send their children to other universities.
Former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens said Churchill should be fired and a growing chorus of right-wing pundits and media figures joined in the call for the professor's ouster.
The school launched an investigation into the professor's essay in February 2005 to determine whether it was protected by the First Amendment or whether it had caused enough harm to CU that it could be considered outside the bounds of legitimate expression by a public employee.
Six weeks later, the university ruled that the essay was protected speech. But by that time, CU had become aware of a number of allegations of academic misconduct against Churchill and began a separate probe to look into them.
In May 2006, an investigative committee under the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct ruled that Churchill had committed multiple acts of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification in his scholarship on American Indian history.
The regents, in an 8 to 1 vote, fired him 14 months later.
Churchill filed a civil suit the day after he was dismissed by CU, accusing the university of trumping up charges of misconduct against him in order to find a legal avenue by which to remove him from the faculty.
He claimed in his suit that he was actually fired for writing the controversial essay on 9/11 -- a violation of his First Amendment rights -- and that he deserved reinstatement on the Boulder campus.
The 3 1/2-week long trial saw testimony from 45 witnesses, including dozens of professors, a handful of regents, two past CU presidents, the former Colorado governor, and Churchill himself, who testified over a two-day period.
Lane, the former professor's attorney, spent much of his time during the trial making the case that CU had it out for Churchill from the very beginning.
He equated the furor over the essay to a bloodthirsty "howling mob" gathered at the gates of CU demanding his client's head, a general rage that he said forced CU to do whatever it could to rid itself of a faculty member who had become a thorn in its side.
Lane hammered the CU regents for making statements and giving interviews four years ago -- in the midst of the furor over the 9/11 essay -- that indicated they wanted Churchill gone. Some of those same regents ultimately voted to fire the professor in the summer of 2007.
Former Regent Jerry Rutledge testified that he would have immediately fired Churchill for the essay if there had been a legal way to do it.
"Gee, maybe this 9/11 essay had a little something to do with him getting fired," Lane said sarcastically to the jury before it was handed the case. "Maybe huh? You think?"
Lane said CU established a "kangaroo court" to convict Churchill of academic misconduct, a charge that he characterized as consisting of three bad footnotes out of 30 years of scholarship.
He said the CU committees that evaluated Churchill's work were stacked with handpicked "pet poodles" and biased faculty members who did what they had to in order to fire the professor.
CU's attorney, Patrick O'Rourke, called Churchill's free expression claims a "fraud." He ridiculed the notion that CU was able to somehow get 20 faculty members to all come together in a conspiracy to knock one of their colleagues down.
"Professor Churchill is trying to use the First Amendment to excuse his fraud," he said during his closing argument.
O'Rourke said the university had every right to inquire whether Churchill's 9/11 essay had caused it harm and disturbed its operations.
In the end, CU ruled that the essay was protected and from there on out, it was no longer a factor in Churchill's fate, O'Rourke said.
Members of the various committees that examined Churchill's scholarship were called to the stand to tell the jury why they deemed the professor's work to be not only substandard, but to represent a deliberate pattern of misconduct.
Professor after professor testified that fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and ghostwriting -- where one attaches another's name to a piece of written work -- are simply not acceptable practices in academia.
"He just cheated," testified CU sociology professor Michael Radelet, who served on the investigative committee.
And O'Rourke said Churchill hasn't acknowledged his behavior or apologized for it.
"What we saw is that Ward Churchill can justify everything and explain nothing," he told the jury. "What we have seen at the end of the day is that in Ward Churchill's world there are no standards and no accountability."
UPDATE: 3:53 p.m.
The jury has reached a verdict in the case of Ward Churchill vs. University of Colorado. It is expected to be delivered shortly after 4 p.m.
UPDATE: 3:01 p.m.
Jury question hints of Churchill victory
A question submitted this afternoon from the jury indicates that it is leaning toward granting Ward Churchill's civil claim against the University of Colorado.
But the six jurors also appear to be struggling with what to award the former ethnic studies professor in damages, if anything.
Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves read the question in the courtroom this afternoon.
"We are feeling uncomfortable about the damages portion. Would you be willing to meet with us to talk about what is required and other things regarding money," Naves said. "And is zero dollars an option?"
Naves read his reply to the jury.
"I cannot meet with you. Please re-read the instructions regarding damages and if you find in favor of the plaintiff but do not find damages, you will award in the sum of one dollar," he said.
Churchill attorney Robert Bruce said "it's one of those juror questions that seems to be leaning in our direction."
The way the verdict form is organized, he said, the jury wouldn't get to the question of damages unless it had already ruled that Churchill was unlawfully terminated from his post as professor.
A second question was just posed by the jury, asking if they could replace one juror who cannot agree on a dollar amount for non-economic and economic losses and damages.
The judge said no.
UPDATE: 2:40 p.m.
The lawyers in the case have been called to the courthouse to answer a question from the jury.
The bailiff emerged from the jury room a little while ago with a piece of paper, which he brought to the judge.
A robe-less Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves came out of his chambers to talk to the court reporter briefly before going back behind closed doors.
UPDATE: 1:51 p.m.
Jury does a working lunch
The jury has just stepped out of the jury room for a break, its second of the day.
The four women and two men worked on the case through lunch and are now entering their ninth hour of deliberations.
Ward Churchill is back at the plaintiff's table, reading a book.
About a dozen people are in the courtroom reading, working on laptops, or doing crossword puzzles as they await a verdict.
About the same number of media personnel populate the hallway outside the courtroom.
UPDATE: 10:52 a.m.
Jury deliberations continue, Churchill dozes in courtroom
Reporters, photographers and trial watchers are once again gathered in the Denver City & County Building to await a verdict from the jury in the Ward Churchill versus the University of Colorado civil trial.
The six jurors went into the jury room at 9 a.m. and haven't yet come out for a break this morning.
Churchill, and his wife Natsu Taylor Saito, entered the courtroom a few minutes ago and are both sitting at the plaintiff's table.
Saito is sitting in a chair with her arms crossed and Churchill is appears to be dozing in his seat.
No lawyers have returned to the courtroom yet.
The jury was given the case at noon Wednesday and has been deliberating for about 5 1/2 hours.
Labels: Academic Freedom, Censorship, Charlie Brennan, Consequences, Indigenous Resistance, Media Bankruptcy, Media Bias, Ward Churchill