Friday, April 3, 2009

OMFG! Chuch wins suit

Bloody hell!

DENVER - Former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill said justice was delivered after he won his case against the school, but was only awarded $1 in damages by the jury.

The jury ruled in Churchill's favor, deciding that when he was fired in 2007 it was because a majority of CU's Regents were responding to political pressure stemming from outrage over an essay he wrote after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

In the essay, he compared Sept. 11 victims inside the World Trade Center towers to an infamous Nazi.

CU had maintained the ethnic studies professor was dismissed for plagiarism and academic misconduct.
From LGF.


Mr. Bingley said...

unbelieveable. the guy is a plagiarist and a fraud.

Caz said...

The jury, aged between 19 and 37 years, seemed to decide the case on matters that weren't even within bounds.

They, umm, thought Ward's reputation was damaged, which, err, pretty much goes with the territory if you lose your job because of misconduct.

His team did an excellent job of picking the jury.

For unknown reasons, they were asked (at the screening stage) if any of them would have been "upset" if someone they knew had been killed in the Twin Towers, only two of the 11 jurors raised their hands. Go figure.

All through the trial the only questions the jury put to the judge suggested that they didn't think making things up or plagiarizing were wrong, and they were totally fixated on poor little Chutch's first amendment rights.

They assessed the case utterly wrongly (Churchill's reputation being damaged, which wasn't the point), were too dumb to understand appropriate academic standards, but they still determined that Ward's reputation was only worth a dollar.

It could have been worse.

The next boot falls in a couple of weeks when the judge determines whether Chutch can have his job back.

Caz said...

OK, well I'm stoopid!

(Don't ever quote me on that.)

Ward was asking for lost wages & compensation for damage to his reputation, as well as asking for his job back.

Boy, did I miss the fundamentals!

Churchill's life and academic outputs are so absurd that I managed to lose track of the basics somewhere along the line. Do'h.

kae said...

Hiya Caz
I thought the $1 was a token. Yes, they found that the University sacked him because of the attention the article gave to him, and them. And it did tarnish his reputation. But I think that the wider reason, that he lied about his qualifications, particularly the one that he was er, "first people", native American Indian, was overlooked in the court case.
They also sacked him because of his lies. Like the plagiarism (?!) they couldn't be proven - but his articles were full of black armband history and twisted "truths", painting the white man as bad.

I hope they can get rid of him, he's a bad person to have on their campus because he's got a barrow to push. Even the native American people dislike him.

Lyn said...

Pity students who have to sit through classes of arrogant professors like Churchill. That guy is stuck in the late 1960's. Worst part is his lecturing and "essays" are considered part of higher education. I understand the value of exposing people to other points of view, but Churchill is not helping expand anyone's mind. He just pollutes.

RebeccaH said...

In the US, when a plaintiff is awarded a dollar for damages, it's a clear message that says, "Okay, we can't get you for what you actually did, but we know you are a scumbag, so here's your damages." And if they make the U of C give him back his job, trust me: the faculty will be merciless. It'll be a classic case of "Be careful what you wish for".

Zardoz said...

I graduated with an engineering degree from CU, Boulder, in 1972. Even at that time there was a clear division between the “engine school” and the “arts and parties” side of the campus. Ward Churchill is a throwback to those days of face painting, student radicalism and speaking truth to power. The world has moved on but Ward and his happy tribe (no offense intended to his “Native American” background) are still locked in a struggle with The Man.

Unfortunately, if he is returned to teaching, his classroom will be filled, as in the past, with self-hating kids from the suburbs who are rebelling against oppression and the evils of society, well, at least until mom and dad's money runs out.

From everything I've read and heard the attorney that represented the University did a shameful job and David Lane, Churchill's mouthpiece, kicked ass and took names. Kind of reminds me of the first OJ trial.

Anonymous said...

They discussed this on O'Reilly the other night and a legal person said there's a good chance that he won't be readmitted. Mehaul.

Caz said...

Zardoz - he's not a Native American as he claims, he has never been accepted as a member of any tribe, despite his best attempts and notwithstanding the long braided hair, buckskin coat, the hat, the bad teeth, etc. He's a fraud, a charlatan, a liar from head to toe.

Anon - yep, O'Reilly was pathetic. Beggars belief that a university engaged a D-grade lawyer for such an important case.