Jury Rules Ward Churchill Wrongfully Fired

Jury Rules Ward Churchill Wrongfully Fired

It’s not exactly international law, but he was my professor at CU — one of the very best I ever had — and, in order to rule in his favor, the jury had to find that a majority of the Regents used his infamous 9/11 essay as a “substantial or motivating factor” in the decision to fire him.  So I think there’s a nexus.

I’m delighted at the outcome, although the jury’s award of $1.00 in damages is puzzling.  The real issue is whether Churchill will be reinstated at CU, which is up to the judge, not the jury.

Whatever one thinks of Churchill, his victory is very good news for academic freedom.  You can read about the trial in remarkable detail at Race to the Bottom.  I followed the trial closely, and am more than a little biased, but the vast majority of the research-misconduct allegations against Churchill seemed amazingly petty: the kind of “mistakes” — most were simply differences of scholarly opinion — that I imagine a disciplinary committee bent on firing someone could find in the work of anyone who had been a prolific scholar for nearly 30 years.  (The only genuinely disturbing plagiarism allegation, for which he had a decent explanation, took place before Churchill was at CU and could not be used as a reason for his dismissal.)

All in all, an excellent result.  Fingers crossed that the judge reinstates him.

UPDATE: A minor note.  The New York Times article says that “[a] reinstatement would likely draw a sharply negative reaction among many on the faculty, since a faculty committee was instrumental in his firing.”  That is a somewhat misleading statement.  Three CU committees reviewed the allegations against Churchill, and although all of them concluded that he had engaged in misconduct, only one — the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct — recommended that he be fired.  Indeed, the final committee, Privilege & Tenure, voted 4-1 against firing him.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Topics
International Human Rights Law
Notify of
John Tan, tourist guide
John Tan, tourist guide

Sounds pretty damning: Three of the authors that Churchill cites in support of his smallpox thesis, Evan Connell, RG Robertson and Russell Thornton, have rejected Churchill’s interpretation of their work. Thornton characterized Churchill’s smallpox thesis as “fabrication.”

M. Gross
M. Gross

I’m with John Tan on this one, if Ward Churchill isn’t guilty of fabricating results, it’s hard to see who could be.

He basically invented a genocide, as it were.  To describe this as “…simply differences of scholarly opinion” risks unhinging my jaw.

John Tan, tourist guide
John Tan, tourist guide

Just skimmed the committee report on research misconduct. You really ought not to be minimizing Churchill’s intellectual crimes in so cavalier a manner. According to the report: 1. Churchill “total[ly] fabricat[ed] . . . data to support his hypothesis (i.e., the ghostwriting and self-citation of the Robbins and Jaimes essays).” In other words, he made up shit in someone else’s name and then cited it — in essence citing himself (pretending to be someone else) for the proposition he was advancing. 2. Churchill repeatedly cites “sources [that] in fact contradict his claims . . . a form of falsification of evidence.” 3. Churchill’s inferences fail even cursory rational basis scrutiny, as it were. “Professor Churchill misrepresented his sources in two essays when describing Captain John Smith and smallpox, a form of falsification.  We conclude also that he fabricated his account, because no evidence — not even circumstantial evidence — supports his claim.” 4.   Churchill misrepresents his sources, and worse,  his sources repudiate his fabrications. “In his earlier essays, Professor Churchill cites Thornton’s work in what is at least a misleading manner.  In ‘An American Holocaust?,’ he actively misrepresents Thornton, a form of falsification.” 5. Churchill is guilty of fraudulent embellishment that goes to the crux of his thesis. “[O]ne… Read more »

humblelawstudent
humblelawstudent

KJH stated, “I certainly trust your judgment and the judgment of Marianne Wesson . . . more than the judgment of the jurors who sat in the courtroom every day.” That’s pretty rich.  No wonder KJH likes W. Churchill, it must be the mutual fondness for mischaracterizations and specious reasoning. Kevin, assuming your explanation of this ruling is at all accurate, the jury merely had to find that the 9-11 essay was a “substantial or motivating factor” in the decision to fire him. John Tan is not arguing that politics didn’t play a role.  JT is criticizing Ward’s research misconduct.  The jury’s finding hardly means that W. Churchill didn’t engage in (significant) research misconduct.   In other words, “substantial” or “motivating” hardly means the “primary” reason, let alone the only reason.  In addition, it explains the $1 damages.  The jury found, like any sane person would, that the politics played a role.  In fact, that he caused a political firestorm is the only thing saving him for a very much deserved firing for research misconduct.   But, as likely the jury concluded, W. Churchill is hardly a saint.  Hence, the finding that politics played a role, but $1 in damages. The morale… Read more »

humblelawstudent
humblelawstudent

Quite funny. Try adding an argument to your ad hominem.  It does wonders.

Liz
Liz

Mr Heller, this judgement doesn’t seem to be exculpatory for Churchill, it would only indicate that the University acted improperly and breached its contract with him. I realize Churchill isn’t the one on trial in this case, but the point being made seems to be more that the University would not have been motivated to investigate in the first place if not for the content of Churchill’s speech….not that the investigation was inaccurate. To the layperson (that’s me) that’s a bit like saying “so what if I committed the crime, you wouldn’t have caught me if I hadn’t drawn attention to myself!” Seems kind of weak. 
 

NewStream Dream
NewStream Dream

Professor Heller,

Can you maybe walk me through how an individual who shares your political beliefs is ever personally responsible for their actions in your universe.  Lynne Stewart admits that she, and I am quoting from her own words, “knowingly violated prison rules and was careless, overemotional and politically naïve in her representation of a terrorist client.”  But, to you, she is the victim of a right-wing conspiracy.  Ward Churchill fabricated sources and again, in your own words, committed “dsitrubing” acts of plagirism, but he is a victim of the same right wing paranoia. 

I believe in socialized medicine …. so I quess that parking ticket I just got was “the man” trying to get me back!!!!!

M. Gross
M. Gross

Let’s see if the judge reinstates him.  I’m thinking “probably not,” but perhaps the punishment fits the crime, for the University, at least.

M. Gross
M. Gross

Were the juries award of damages anything other than $1.00, I’d agree, yes, the judge will certainly reinstate him.  However, given the ambiguity of the result, he may interpret it as a endorsement for using his personal judgment.

To quote the NYTimes:

First, they asked whether it was possible to award no damages. A few minutes later, they asked whether, if all but one jury member could agree on a dollar amount, that person could be replaced by another juror. (The answer was no.)

I think you could reasonably read that outcome as the jury saying he was terminated for illegitimate reasons, but still deserved to be terminated.