From my 2009 Book, AL QUADA GOES TO COLLEGE:
As for those in the World Trade Center... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
With this volatile paragraph, published within 24 hours of the Nine-Eleven attacks, Professor Ward Churchill precipitated one of the most vitriolic clashes to date between an institution of higher learning and a tenured member of its faculty since the start of America’s War on Terror.
Ward LeRoy Churchill, born October 2, 1947, is “an American writer and political activist.” He was a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 1990 to 2007, when he was finally forced out, following a controversy over his September 12th essay… a controversy which had percolated and festered for some four years just below the surface. Primarily, his work had always focused on the historical treatment of political dissenters and American Indians by the United States. His work usually featured controversial and provocative claims, written in a direct, often confrontational style.
Born in Elmwood, Illinois, Churchill was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1966. His record of service is a matter of some confusion, if not to say controversy, with available sources variously claiming that he volunteered for Vietnam, where he became a combat veteran, or that he was nothing more than a light-truck driver. He also is said to have been radicalized by involvement with Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen in the late Sixties, when he began his college studies. At any rate, he earned a B.A. in Technological Communications in 1974 and an M.A. in Communications Theory in 1975, both from the University of Illinois at Springfield. Three years later, his career at the University of Colorado – Boulder began with a mid-level administrative post. His rise from that relatively humble position can only be described as meteoric.
Churchill began working as an affirmative action officer at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1978. He also lectured on Indian issues in the ethnic studies program. In 1990, he was hired as an associate professor, although he did not possess the academic doctorate usually required for such a position. The following year he was granted tenure in the Communications department, without the usual six-year probationary period, after being declined by the Sociology and Political Science departments. He was presented with an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from Alfred University after giving a lecture there about American Indian history in 1992. He moved to the new Ethnic Studies department in 1996 and was promoted to full professor in 1997. He became chair of the department in June 2002.
How to explain this remarkable progression? Four books certainly go a long way toward an explanation. Appointment, promotion and tenure criteria of many universities allow for the substitution of exceptional achievement for traditional terminal-degree status. But, predictably, after Churchill’s 2001 essay fell under the media spotlight in 2005, his claims and qualifications began to be scrutinized and challenged. As any decent attorney knows very well, when you want to undermine a witness’s credibility the place to begin is his resume, if that is open to questioning.
In Churchill’s case, the Denver Post, which itself had published a flattering profile of Churchill back in 1987, helped lead the charge against him. On June 9, 2005, the paper stated, “Everything from his service record in Vietnam to his ethnic heritage to the quality of his scholarly work has been deconstructed - fueled by his own statements that don't always stand up.” The article went on to say, “He's described himself in interviews and documents as Indian - sometimes Creek, sometimes Cherokee, sometimes both - but police records indicate otherwise, and he has been unable or unwilling to provide any documentation of his ancestry. He says he walked a dangerous point position in Vietnam, but his military records say he was a light-truck driver. Experts in his field of American Indian studies can't agree on the quality of his scholarship.” In another 2005 article, the paper reported that the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians confirmed that Churchill, who claimed Native-American heritage, was merely an “associate member” of the tribe, which requires at least one-quarter Indian blood for full-fledged membership. A spokeswoman for the tribe’s enrollment committee was quoted as asserting, "He was trying to get recognized as an Indian. He could not prove he was an Indian (Cherokee) at all."
Once the Pandora’s Box was opened by the Post articles, it took no time at all for his academic bona fides to be questioned.
A high-ranking University of Colorado official urged a faculty appointment for Ward Churchill in 1990, despite questions about his academic credentials. Less than a year later, Churchill landed a coveted tenured faculty position, bypassing the rigorous, six-year academic review that normally precedes tenure, according to CU documents. The correspondence between then-Vice Chancellor for Academic Services Kaye Howe and Dean of Arts and Sciences Charles Middleton sheds more light on how Churchill, who faces possible firing, rose in the ranks at CU. Although Churchill's scholarship is under fire now for alleged sloppiness and fabrication, CU officials in 1990 considered him an expert in American Indian studies who might be lost to another school.
One reporter, noting that Churchill’s “stream of consciousness” diatribe had dropped into obscurity after publication in 2001, observed, “Dusted off three years later, it has catapulted him to prime-time TV, prompted death threats and spawned protests from New York to Colorado.” This writer went on to report Churchill’s explanation of his controversial article, which had gone on to become a book. “"I am not a defender of the Sept. 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned ... such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy,"
The University of Colorado Regents began their inquiry into Professor Churchill on February 3, 2005. In the words of the preliminary report resulting from this inquiry, which was led by Chancellor Philip DiStefano, “The review by the Chancellor focused initially on allegations concerning certain conduct, speeches, and writings of Professor Churchill and related to the nature of his statements. During the course of the review the Chancellor received additional allegations, primarily in the area of research misconduct.”
With regard to the first set of allegations, the report reads as follows:
1. Did certain statements by Professor Churchill, made in his writings and speeches, exceed the boundaries of a public employee's constitutionally protected speech?
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.
The crude and strained application of the "little Eichmanns" metaphor so soon after the 9/11 attacks demonstrated indifference to the families of 9/11 victims and Holocaust survivors, outraged many members of the public and aroused calls by public officials and others for Professor Churchill's censure or dismissal. Although the 9/11 Essay was republished in several places and expanded into a book, it received little public notice until January 2005, when Professor Churchill was asked to speak at Hamilton College in New York and the student newspaper ran a story about the essay.
As a result of attention generated by the 9/11 Essay, Professor Churchill's other writings and his speeches came under intense public scrutiny. Allegations emerged that Professor Churchill advocated violent acts, that his statements exceeded the bounds of protected expression, and that his conduct and speech have caused such outrage as to warrant his dismissal for cause. The following statements were considered:
• In an interview published in the April 2004 edition of Satya magazine, Professor Churchill spoke of the elimination of the United States government:
If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? I've never fashioned myself to be a revolutionary, but it's part and parcel of what I'm talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in which something better can replace it. In instability there's potential. That's about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. I'm actually de-evolutionary. I don't want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.
• In an essay written in 2001, Professor Churchill stated: "Those committed to achieving fundamental change rather than cosmetic tweakings of the existing system are thus left with no viable alternative but to include the realities of state violence as an integral part of our political calculus."
• On a February 12, 2005 segment on "At Large w/ Geraldo Rivera," Professor Churchill said: "I've even had people argue that those in the Pentagon were innocent bystanders, as well. I mean, my God, if you can't hit the Pentagon, what can you hit?"; and "[b]ut as it stands, it was absolutely necessary, and it was absolutely empowering, even if they get beat, that they actually drew blood where it counted."
• In a lecture given by Professor Churchill in Seattle on August 10, 2003, in response to an audience member's question as to "why shouldn't we do something and how could we move so they don't see us coming," Professor Churchill responded, in pertinent part:
You carry the weapon. That's how they don't see it coming. You're the one - [inaudible]. They talk about colorblind; they're blind to your color. You said it yourself. Okay?
You don't send the black liberation army into Wall Street to conduct an action. You don't send the American Indian movement into downtown Seattle to conduct an action. Who do you send? You. With your beard shaved, your hair cut close and wearing a banker's suit.
In considering these statements and their bearing on Professor Churchill's employment, the University of Colorado as a public employer is constitutionally required to abide by the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment prevents government employers such as the University from abridging protected speech by taking adverse action against public employees, including University professors, because of their expression or views on matters of public concern.
Speech that is purely political in nature receives the strongest constitutional protection. Constitutional protection of political expression is most often raised when the expression is unpopular. As the Supreme Court has said, "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Professor Churchill's referenced statements concerning United States policies and global affairs, though repugnant in many respects, constitute political expression.
Public employees have a right to express themselves so long as their speech does not unduly disrupt the operation of the workplace or impede the performance of the speaker's duties. In such circumstances, the government employer's interest in "promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees" may outweigh the employee's First Amendment rights. Professor Churchill's statements and the outcry against them have sorely embarrassed the University. However, the reviewers found no evidence that he has failed to maintain his faculty responsibilities. Courts have upheld adverse employment action based on disruptions only where the speaking employee has a special duty to an outside constituency.
In such cases, courts have focused on the employee's responsibilities in the workplace. For example, a University administrator, such as the chair of a department, has a greater responsibility to external constituencies than does a professor. Where, as here, a professor's offensive statements in matters of political belief do not entail a non-performance of his professorial duties, the First Amendment forbids the government from disciplining the professor for making the statements.
In Jeffries v. Harleston, a tenured professor and department chair outraged the community, alumni, donors, and prospective students over an anti-Semitic speech. He was subsequently removed from his chairmanship, a position in which he could be viewed as speaking for the institution. However, he was not removed from his appointment as a tenured professor. In upholding his removal as chair, the court noted that the professor still had access to the "'marketplace of ideas' in the classroom." This is in keeping with the constitutional principle that the First Amendment does not allow the public, with the government's help, to shout down unpopular ideas because they stir anger.
Similarly, in this case, the outrage Professor Churchill has generated among state and federal elected officials, commentators, and citizens across the country most likely would have warranted his removal as Chair of the Ethnic Studies Department had he not stepped down. However, his faculty position does not impose the same responsibilities to those external constituencies. Professor Churchill appears to have continued in his faculty responsibilities and the content of his speech has not disrupted the University's provision of services to its students or the ability of other faculty members to perform their responsibilities. His political expression is, therefore, constitutionally protected against government sanction on the grounds of disruption, in spite of the damage it may have caused.
In addition to the limitations on speech specifically applicable to public employees, the Supreme Court has held that advocacy of the use of force or violation of the law is not protected when it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. However, this exception to the exceedingly broad protection otherwise afforded by the First Amendment applies only to advocacy of concrete or imminent violent action, as opposed to political hyperbole or advocacy and teaching of illegal violent action as an abstract principle. There is no evidence that the statements that precipitated this review or any of Professor Churchill's other referenced statements meet this standard. While some of his statements advocate violence as a means to a political end in an abstract way, they do not rise to the level of inciting imminent and concrete violence as that line has been drawn by the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, the nature and content of Professor Churchill's speech does not exceed the boundaries of a public employee's protected speech.
Regarding the allegations of research misconduct, the report reads:
2. Is there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in other conduct in the performance of his University responsibilities that warrants further action by the University, namely, research misconduct, teaching misconduct, or fraudulent misrepresentation?
The relationship between a University and a professor is governed by contractual and professional obligations that can result in discipline or discharge. Contractual arrangements that reflect traditions of tenure and academic freedom protect professors even in private institutions where First Amendment protections may not apply. Academic freedom cases usually involve the "rights of professors who express radical views or engage in radical political activity[,]"and academic freedom typically shields an individual from institutional sanction even for speech that is embarrassing to the institution or to one's colleagues or students. Still, it is not without limits.
Among other things, academic freedom is subject to the limitations imposed by standards of professional conduct articulated in the rules and policies of the University. Although the standards of professional integrity to which a tenured professor must adhere may differ according to what should be expected of a professor in a particular field, every discipline requires intellectual honesty and professional conduct. For tenured professors, adherence to minimum standards of professional integrity is a contractual requirement.
Because the matters reviewed here arose as a result of statements by Professor Churchill protected by the First Amendment, it is appropriate to ask whether it is now proper to pursue possible action for alleged misconduct identified in the course of this review. The fact that the controversial subject matter of speech may be constitutionally protected does not insulate it from conforming to minimum standards of professional integrity, including standards for academic research. The University should address misconduct uncovered in the course of a review such as this one just as it should address alleged sexual harassment, sanctionable criminal activity, or other wrongdoing within its purview.
a. Is there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in research misconduct?
In the course of this review, the University received information from scholars, expert in the fields in which Professor Churchill writes, who tendered allegations of research misconduct which, if true, could violate standards of professional integrity. The following information was considered:
• Professor John LaVelle of the University of New Mexico forwarded allegations to the reviewers that Professor Churchill's work is "sorely lacking in historical/factual veracity and scholarly integrity." One of Professor LaVelle's most serious allegations is that Professor Churchill has misrepresented an important statute in the field of federal Indian law, the General Allotment Act of 1887, and that this misrepresentation is a central premise of one of Professor Churchill's scholarly theories. According to Professor Churchill, the General Allotment Act "imposed a formal eugenics code" that tribes themselves adopted by making blood quantum a requirement of membership. Professor LaVelle has asserted that Professor Churchill's criticisms of Indian tribes for using blood quantum standards as part of their tribal enrollment criteria rests on false information about the Act. Professor LaVelle asserts that "[t]he main flaw of this federal/tribal conspiracy theory is that it rests on — and propagates — demonstrably false information concerning the contents and impact of the General Allotment Act." Professor Churchill continued to maintain the theory subsequent to publication of Professor LaVelle's articles. Other scholars have relied in their work on Professor Churchill's assertion that the General Allotment Act contained a blood quantum requirement.
• Professor LaVelle makes a similar allegation about an assertion Professor Churchill has advanced concerning the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. The Indian Arts and Crafts Act is aimed at preventing non-Indians from marketing their art as Indian-produced. Professor Churchill says the following about the Arts and Crafts Act:
The government "standard" involved — usually called "blood quantum" within the lexicon of "scientific" racism — is that a person can be an "American Indian artist" only if he or she is "certifiably" of "one-quarter or more degree of Indian blood by birth." Alternatively, the artist may be enrolled as a member of one or another of the federally-sanctioned "tribes" currently existing within the U.S. . . .
Professor LaVelle refers to Professor Churchill's description of the Act as a "false characterization" and states further that Professor Churchill's description is "erroneous — and egregiously so."
• Professor Thomas Brown of Lamar University forwarded information alleging that a theory Professor Churchill has published as fact--that the U.S. Army perpetuated genocide—is clearly contrary to the source Professor Churchill cites. Professor Churchill has asserted that the U.S. Army deliberately distributed smallpox-infested blankets to Mandan Indians in 1837, causing an epidemic in which over 100,000 people died. However, the source he cites is contrary to both the number of dead and his version of the story. Indeed, [as to] his source, Professor Russell Thornton of UCLA and other experts agree that the story is without historical basis. Professor Brown states:
Situating Churchill's rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill attributes to them.
• Professor Fay G. Cohen of Dalhousie University in Canada told the University of Colorado during this review that Professor Churchill plagiarized her work by publishing a chapter entitled "In Usual and Accustomed Places" in a book entitled The State of Native America. The chapter was nearly the same as an article entitled "Implementing Indian Treaty Fishing Rights: Conflict and Cooperation" that she had published in a volume edited by Professor Churchill. The book chapter showed the author to be "Institute for Natural Progress," and the "About the Contributors" section of the book, in turn, attributed the work of the Institute of Natural Progress to Ward Churchill. In 1997 the Dalhousie University legal counsel rendered an opinion concluding that the chapter was plagiarized."
Professor Cohen alleged that she did not communicate the allegations of plagiarism discussed above to the University of Colorado until March 2005 because she was intimidated by Professor Churchill based on past dealings. She recounted that when she withdrew her work from The State of Native America, a book edited by, [and] which Professor Churchill was closely involved with, due to substantive editorial disagreements, he telephoned her late at night and said in a menacing voice: "I'll get you for this." While the threat and resulting intimidation described by Professor Cohen did not directly relate to the research misconduct allegation, they would be relevant to a question which may be raised during the course of the research misconduct inquiry, that is, why Professor Cohen did not pursue the plagiarism claim sooner.
• Rhonda Kelly, the sister of Professor Churchill's late wife, Leah Renae Kelly, has made allegations to the reviewers concerning a fifty-page "biographical preface" written by Professor Churchill for a book of essays by Leah Kelly entitled In My Own Voice. The essays were posthumously published in 2001 in a book edited by Professor Churchill. Rhonda Kelly denounces the preface as "inaccurate and defaming" because, in her view, the preface incorrectly describes Leah's upbringing on and near a Canadian Ojibway reserve. Further, she says Churchill misrepresents Ojibway society as matrilineal when in fact it is patrilineal. The Assembly of First Nations, representing Native peoples across Canada, has also passed a resolution in support of Rhonda Kelly and denouncing the book.
• Professor LaVelle also alleges that Professor Churchill has misused the materials of another scholar, Rebecca L. Robbins, Ph.D. Professor LaVelle points out that a passage from an essay in a 1993 book by Professor Churchill closely resembles a similar passage from a 1992 publication by Dr. Robbins. Years after Professor LaVelle raised the issue, Professor Churchill republished the essay with some changes but still containing Robbins' work without attribution.
The inquiry into allegations of research misconduct is a function assigned to the faculty. The University of Colorado at Boulder Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (the "Committee") has the duty to review, inter alia, allegations of "[f]abrication, falsification, plagiarism and other forms of misappropriation of ideas, or additional practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted in the research community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research." Allegations of research misconduct that are not frivolous are reviewed by the Committee. With the exception of Rhonda Kelly's allegations, with respect to which the reviewers were unable to obtain independent verification, the referenced allegations meet that minimum standard and will be referred to the Committee for further inquiry. If the Committee determines that Professor Churchill engaged in research misconduct, the Committee is to make recommendations regarding possible disciplinary action ranging from warning to dismissal. Consistent with University policy, the Committee's process will afford Professor Churchill all due opportunity to respond to the allegations.
b. Is there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in teaching misconduct?
During the course of the review, the Chancellor received information about complaints made by several of Professor Churchill's former students. According to the information, two students complained that their grades had been lowered by Professor Churchill because of positions they took. The Regent Law on academic freedom provides that students must have freedom of study and discussion. Undergraduate students who have concerns about faculty behavior, performance or grades may seek resolution as outlined in the "Student Appeals, Complaints, and Grievances: A Brief Guide," published by the Office of Undergraduate Education. Both of the complaints received are over five years old. Much of the information on which they must rely cannot be verified because student records are not retained after five years. No action can be taken on these complaints at this date.
c. Is there evidence that Professor Churchill engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation by misrepresenting himself as a Native American in order either to gain an employment-related benefit or to add credibility and public acceptance to his scholarship?
The reviewers received multiple generalized accusations that Professor Churchill is not, in fact, Indian, and that he has misrepresented his Indian status in a way material to his employment status and his work as a scholar. Professor Churchill's claim of Indian ethnicity dates at least to his self-identification on a 1979 application for employment at the University, and is perpetuated by the notation "Tribal Enrollment: United Keetoowah Band Cherokee (Roll No. R7627)" on his curriculum vita. It also appears that Professor Churchill has used his claimed Indian status to attract an audience for his work and to add credibility to it. He has used an "Indian voice," speaking of "my people" and "we." The title of one of his books, From a Native Son, implies that he speaks as an American Indian. At times he has claimed ancestry in three tribes. He started one speech: "I bring you greetings from the Elders of the Keetoowah band of Cherokee, my mother's people." In another work he refers to ". . .my father's people, the Creeks." He writes that "I am an enrolled Keetowah Band Cherokee." Principal Chief Wickliffe of the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee reported to the reviewers that an "associate" of the band is not enrolled in the tribe; associate membership is merely an honorary designation, like an honorary degree from a university.
The question of Professor Churchill's Indian status raises two separate but related issues. First, did Professor Churchill misrepresent his Indian status on an employment application and, as a result, gain an employment advantage? This question arose in 1994 when certain Indian leaders communicated with the University claiming, among other things, that Professor Churchill lied on his application about his Indian heritage. The then Boulder campus chancellor reviewed this complaint and concluded that University policy permitted self-identification. The chancellor noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the position that observation and self identification are the most reliable indicators of ethnicity. The chancellor declined to pursue the matter. The question about Professor Churchill's employment application must be considered closed as a result of this ten-year old review.
A remaining question is whether Professor Churchill has attempted to gain a scholarly voice, credibility, and an audience for his scholarship by wrongfully asserting that he is an Indian. There is evidence that Professor Churchill's assertion of his Indian status is material to his scholarship, yet there is serious doubt about his Indian identity. The evidence is sufficient to warrant referral of this question to the Committee on Research Misconduct for inquiry and, if appropriate, investigation to determine whether Professor Churchill relies on his Indian identity in his scholarship and, if so, whether he has fabricated that identity. The Committee should inquire as to whether Professor Churchill can assert a reasonable basis for clarifying such identity.
On these facts the chancellor, clearly a politically astute individual, found that Churchill’s statements about the Nine-Eleven attacks, “however repugnant,” were protected by the First Amendment. He then went on to find that the allegations of research misconduct, including Churchill’s apparently false claims of American Indian heritage, were serious enough to be referred to the institution’s Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. The committee subsequently found the professor guilty of research misconduct and on June 26, 2006, the university announced its intent to fire Churchill, who in his turn vowed to sue the school. "We're going to a real court because we can trust juries to do the right thing," he was quoted as saying.
Meanwhile, the University of Colorado Chapter of the American Association of University Professors issued its statement on the decision:
No one doubts that the original charges against Professor Churchill were politically motivated. In February, 2005, the Colorado House of Representatives unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Churchill and State Governor Bill Owens called publicly for him to resign for statements he made regarding the World Trade Tower disaster. These resolutions violated Professor Churchill's First Amendment right to free speech, as a University appointed committee rightly ruled. However, charges of academic misconduct immediately surfaced--from the same and similar sources--despite the fact that similar charges had been raised at least two years earlier, and were never followed up by the University. In this highly politicized context, many assert that no investigation of Professor's Churchill's work should ever have been undertaken, and others argue that, in such a context, a fair investigation was impossible. Notwithstanding, an inquiry was conducted, in circumstances marked by constant inflammatory, ad hominem, and even obscene attacks, on and off the CU campus, against Professor Churchill, his department, anyone who appeared to support him, and even against some members of the ad hoc Investigating Committee, two of whom resigned soon after the investigation began.
In late July 2007 --- nearly six years after the publication of his “chickens” essay --- Ward Churchill was terminated by a vote of 8-1 of UC’s Board of Regents. “According to university administrators, it was findings that Mr. Churchill had committed research misconduct --- and not the notoriety of his opinions --- that fueled the decision….” Churchill’s attorney, David Lane, filed suit the morning after the board’s vote. The day before, immediately after the vote was announced, Lane commented to the media, “Ward Churchill’s body will be dragged out of here at 4 o’clock and displayed by the regents to satisfy the baying of the right-wing members of the media [and] maybe get them off CU’s back.”
Lane is a named partner in the Denver firm of Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, which says of itself,
The lawyers of KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP are concerned, above all else, with the protection of the civil rights and liberties of our clients. In our role as trial and appellate lawyers, we are the advocates of the underdog. Whether litigating on behalf of employees against the wrongful conduct of their employers, or on behalf of criminal defendants, our mission, first and foremost is to defend the Constitutional and statutory rights of our clients against both criminal accusations and, frequently, oppressive and illegal corporate or governmental conduct.
We represent people, and our opponents are almost always institutional entities. We strongly believe in, and take pride in enforcing, our Constitution and the laws guaranteeing the rights and liberties of the clients we represent.
Of Lane himself, the firm offers the following demographics and credentials, which appear to make him the perfect attorney for Churchill:
Born Denver, Colorado, January 4, 1954; admitted to bar, 1981, New York; 1987, California and Colorado, as well as numerous federal jurisdictions.
Education: University of Colorado (B.A., 1977); Boalt Hall School of Law (J.D., 1980). Previously served as public defender with the New York City Legal Aid Society and supervising attorney.
Recipient: Colorado Criminal Defense Bar Jonathan Olam Award for exceptional service and sacrifice; Newsed Community Development Civil Rights Award.
Lecturer: NAACP Legal Defense Fund's Airlie Conference for death penalty defense attorneys; numerous bar conferences regarding criminal defense issues.
Adjunct Professor of Law: University of Colorado School of Law, 1988-1995; University of Denver School of Law, 1995-present. Certified by U.S. District Court for accepting federal criminal appointments including death penalty cases at trial, on appeal, and in post-conviction. Board Member, Colorado ACLU, 1993-1994; Legal Panel Member, Colorado, ACLU, 1993-1996; Board Member, Colorado Criminal Defense Bar Association, 1994-1998; Member, Amnesty International, National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys.
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense (Federal and State); Trial and Appeals; Civil Rights Litigation and Appeals.
The regents’ vote and Lane’s lawsuit climaxed two and a half years of investigations into the quality of Churchill’s research and writing. “Those investigations started because of a public-relations crisis.” An interim university chancellor and two deans conducted the first inquiry, which found that Churchill’s scholarship was protected by the First Amendment. However, their investigation failed to deal dispositively with earlier allegations of research misconduct. Consequently, a second “special investigation” was launched in May 2006 by a committee composed of three UC-Boulder faculty members and two professors from outside Churchill’s home institution. Their 124-page report cited mostly the same instances of fabricated evidence, improper citations, and plagiarism outlined in the chancellor’s report. “That report, which was followed by several other steps…, paved the way for [the recommendation] to the Board of Regents in July that Mr. Churchill be fired.”
Churchill’s responsive legal action, filed in the Denver District Court, complained that after his “chickens” essay entered the public spotlight, “the university vowed to examine every word ever written or spoken by Professor Churchill in an effort to find some excuse for terminating his employment.” Churchill’s complaint claimed that both the investigations and the regents’ decision were retaliation for the plaintiff’s exercise of free speech rights in an unpopular cause. It added counts of “due process” violations of the federal and state constitutions.
Not long after the firing and the filing, Churchill was back on campus, teaching an unofficial course. “The students organizing Churchill’s teachings [said] the series [was] intended for those who ‘missed out’ on his years as an American Indian studies professor and head of the ethnic studies department at CU.” The university’s administrators “distanced themselves” from the lecture series.
That same month --- September --- UC moved for dismissal of Churchill’s suit. Attorneys for the university argued that the regents enjoyed legal immunity and that “school official have the right to investigate whether faculty fulfill their duties.”
A month later, with some 30 to 50 students attending Churchill’s unofficial class, an altercation ensued between student-organizers of the course and members of the press attempting to cover the class. The upshot was the arrest of one of the students.
In January 2008, Churchill was back in the academic press, this time when the Modern Language Association’s annual convention, held in Chicago, voted a resolution condemning CU for its investigation of the maverick professor’s scholarship.
In mid-2008, CU’s motion was denied. The case is scheduled for trial in early 2009.
Where is Ward now?
Jan. 10, 2011. Ward Churchill's attorneys filed a petition today asking the Colorado Supreme Court to review the decision of the court of appeals because:
(1) the jury should have been allowed to decide whether CU's 2005 investigation into "every word" Ward Churchill published or spoke publicly violated his First Amendment rights;
(2) CU & its Regents should not have absolute immunity from suit when they fire a tenured professor in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and
(3) Ward Churchill should have been reinstated after the jury decided unanimously that he was fired for speech protected by First Amendment, not for alleged research misconduct.
No comments:
Post a Comment