Last week, a Colorado jury found that Ward Churchill had been improperly fired, and awarded him $1 in damages. Churchill was the professor who wrote the essay that described the financial workers who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 as “little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers.”

The essay was written right after the attacks and only gained notoriety when he was invited to participate on a panel at Hamilton College. Churchill was singled out by the ultra-right, with the assistance of Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. The University of Colorado correctly concluded that he could not be fired for expressing his views, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, a number of substantial allegations about Churchill’s academic conduct were also raised around that time. UC administration launched an investigation, into “Professor Churchill’s writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works.” The panel determined that there were concerns regarding “standards of professional integrity,” including charges of possible “research misconduct.” Churchill was fired in 2007.

Churchill sued the university for firing him from his tenured position for expressing politically unpopular, but constitutionally protected, views. The university argued in the trial that he was not fired for his political views but rather for sloppy academic work. The jury agreed with Churchill. I am pleased with their decision.

There is little doubt that the investigation of Churchill work was motivated by the popular discontent sparked by the contents of his 9/11 essay. In fact, the Preliminary Review report states it.

This review of Professor Churchill’s work was sparked by an essay purportedly written on September 12, 2001, the day after terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, (the “9/11 Essay”) and particularly his use of the term “little Eichmanns” in the 9/11 Essay to refer to the victims of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks.

At one point during the trial, the jury submitted a question asking Mr. Churchill would accusations of academic misconduct would have raised if it were not for the dust-up. The obvious answer is no.

The person I really feel bad for is CU’s attorney, Patrick O’Rourke. His job was to convince the jury that Churchill was NOT “dismissed for Constitutionally protected speech.”

Being a child of a university professor, I couldn’t help but follow the case. CU really mounted a weak defense and the expert testimonials CU used end up helping make Churchill’s case for him. The weakness of the defense is rooted in the simple fact that CU never had anything like a “strong case” against Churchill, merely strong opinions and strong attitudes of outrage.

Did he say things he shouldn’t have said? Well, how is that any different when college students throwing race based theme parties? That’s the conundrum of free speech – it’s all a matter of perspective.

As for accusations of plagiarism, the publications in question occurred either before he received tenure in 1991 or was promoted to full Professor in 1997. Any professor will tell you getting through the tenure process is challenging and very stressful on junior faculty. The fact is, the tenure and promotion process is full of checks and balances, if he was the worst offender some like to think, then what does that say about the institution.

I liked Mike Littwin, of the Denver Post, explanation how this was a no brainier.

Related posts

• No related posts.

|  Print This Post |
functional