Here’s something you don’t often see … justice. Ward Churchill won his court case. He was indeed fired for exercising his first amendment rights, says a jury.
That was obvious. He wrote an essay critical of U.S. foreign policy, calling 9/11 victims “little Eichman’s”. His point was that “if you make it a practice of killing other people’s babies for personal gain . . . eventually they’re going to give you a taste of the same thing.”
He was railroaded out of his job at the University of Colorado in Boulder. They didn’t specifically fire him for writing those words – instead they went on a witch hunt, looking for something, anything in his body of work that would offer a good hook to hang the firing on. They came up with plagiarism.
No, says the jury. You fired him for speaking his mind.
Churchill vindicated? This is America. That’s doesn’t happen often – savor the moment.
Piece of Mindful 
Mark, you were right. The result was a vindication of the 1st Amendment. I can support that as I now see how the CU was being selectively vindictive. CU had just cause to fire him, in my opinion, but they did not have the right to hold the card and play it only when Churchill’s essay created a firestorm. I believe that is what the jury found that CU acted improperly and should not have linked one action to the other. I read where the jury wanted to award him NO $$ but were required by the instructions to award at least $1 if they found his firing improper. So that’s what they did. It seems the university did not have clean hands here. They hired him knowing he was controversial and never looked beyond that. We will see know how the judge decides $$$ and whether Churchill regains his position.
LikeLike
Most legal commentary holds that Churchill will regain his position, unless bought out by UC Boulder. And there is still the open question of back wages.
LikeLike
What is clear by CU’s actions is that they wanted to fire him because of his controversial remarks, and then went on a witch hunt. You say, Craig, that you think they would be justified in firing him based on this witch hunt. I beg to differ – the witch-hunt material ought to be immunized now.
I also sense from the jury, them being typical Americans, that they probably didn’t have a clue what he was talking about when he made his “little Eichmans” statement. That’s a big part of the problem – Americans are so insulated from the activities of their government.
LikeLike
The surprise resignation of CU President Elizabeth Hoffman in 2005, after refusing to fire Ward Churchill as directed by then-Governor Bill Owens, as well as a speech of hers at the time, in which she warned of a “new McCarthyism” threatening the U.S., are important elements of this case. The Patriot Act atmosphere fostered by the George W. Bush Administration is all over this story, in my opinion.
Ward Churchill for decades had “his own FBI agents” on his tail, so why, four years after his notorious 9/11 essay, did his presence as a tenured CU professor suddenly become such a big issue? I can’t separate all of this from the general police state atmosphere of the Bush years, and see in it a foreshadowing of the politically motivated firing of U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department under Bush. The whole thing stinks. Passing a “smell test” is entirely out of the question.
LikeLike
I like this take on what happened with this case.
>>>It took the public outrage surrounding that essay to finally goad CU into action, putting into motion a process that lasted four years. Churchill had every opportunity to present his case, and in every instance he failed. His termination back in 2007 was the result, as was his inevitable suit against CU, the conclusion of which we have before us today.
Once the initial public outrage faded, unfortunately, CU returned to its happy place: sloth and incompetence. During the trial, David Lane used CU’s own witnesses to illustrate those qualities, and CU’s attorney, Patrick O’Rourke was unable to counter Lane’s sallies simply because O’Rourke exemplifies CU’s commitment to sloth and incompetence. Perhaps he is a shark feared by medical litigants worldwide, but in a civil rights case with a very obvious villain (and admittedly a less-than-sympathetic good guy), O’Rourke was hopelessly outmatched.
And so, of course, Churchill won. It is a sad commentary that CU was unable to defeat a documented plagiarist and historical fraud, but we consider it the inevitable result of decades of sloth and incompetence. As others have noted with elegant simplicity, CU deserves Churchill. The question Colorado voters (and CU alumni) must now ask themselves is equally simple: Does CU deserve their support?<<<
Let the Market decide.
LikeLike
From where does that quote come, Swede?
LikeLike
Amazing how many masks suppression of free speech can hide behind.
LikeLike
Here’s the link, Wolf.
http://www.pirateballerina.com/blog/entry.php?id=920
LikeLike
So, in other words, a right wing blogger with an obvious vendetta against Churchill is what you find most relevant here? Thanks, Swede. You just validated every attack I have and will make against the wingnutia stupid.
LikeLike
I wagering one can can learn more about the idiosyncracies of the case and its legal ramifications by blinding oneself to motive, versus reading a headline and spewing some equally tainted thoughts.
The paragraphs I pasted address the larger issue of inbred incompadence. CU stepped on this bag of burning poop, how are they going to clean it up?
You guys want to wallow around in name calling, I’d like to elavate the discussion.
LikeLike
Yes, I guess you are. Elevate away …
LikeLike