Ward Churchill Wins; Judge Nullifies Verdict
#1
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/08/churchill

Don't get me wrong, Churchill is an ass but he was fired for political reasons.

The judge was happy trying the case up to the point of the verdict. When the ignorant, illiterature, subhuman jury came to a different conclusion than the judge he would have none of it. The judge then determined that the trial he just held was, in fact, not appropriate to judge the actions of the board of governors, a quasi-judicial board.

I guess that means governors of state universities can now sponsor Christian activities without fear of the courts.
Reply
#2
Churchill WINS?!
Did I read the same article?
Quote:And Naves went out of his way to stress that he found the university's findings of misconduct credible, and that the return of Churchill to the faculty would be damaging.

Not surprisingly, the university praised the decision and Churchill denounced it. Phil DiStefano, chancellor at the university's Boulder campus, said in a statement: "The judge's decision today is a victory for faculty governance. It reinforces the idea that faculty set the standard for academic integrity on our campus and all campuses across the country. His decision reinforces the notion that faculty establish research standards, abide by them and enforce them."

In an interview Tuesday evening, David Lane, Churchill's lawyer said that he would "absolutely, positively appeal." The decision, Lane said, "sends out to America a very, very bad message that if the University of Colorado fires you because they don't like what you said, don't look for justice from this court."

Lane said that an appeals court decision would probably be around a year away -- extending the life of a controversy that started in 2005.

Ward Churchill started teaching at Boulder in 1978 and won tenure in 1991. The author of numerous books and essays about Native American history, Churchill uses fiery rhetoric to describe the wrongs committed by the United States. In the years prior to 2005, Churchill became a popular figure on the campus lecture circuit -- although he tended to attract attention from those who shared his views, and he was not widely known outside academe.

Doesn't sound much of a victory to me...
A.A Mole University
B.A London Institute of Applied Research
B.Sc Millard Fillmore
M.A International Institute for Advanced Studies
Ph.D London Institute of Applied Research
Ph.D Millard Fillmore
Reply
#3
It’s kind of like OJ going free in California for slaughtering two innocent people, and getting hard time in Nevada for stealing back his own sports memorabilia. The end result is good even if the ledger doesn’t quite foot. The only thing better would be if Churchill got immolated by burning jet fuel from a hijacked airliner.
Reply
#4
ham Wrote:Doesn't sound much of a victory to me...

The heading was "Ward Churchill wins, judge nullifies verdict." That explains it.

A group of presumably reasonable people sided with Churchill until the judge saw otherwise. I don't suspect this is the end of it.

Anyone familiar with professional organizations know that when someone is a target it is a simple matter of going through client files to turn a mole hill into a mountain. With academics, publications are an obvious target.
Reply
#5
Quote:The heading was "Ward Churchill wins, judge nullifies verdict." That explains it.

can't seem to find it...
A.A Mole University
B.A London Institute of Applied Research
B.Sc Millard Fillmore
M.A International Institute for Advanced Studies
Ph.D London Institute of Applied Research
Ph.D Millard Fillmore
Reply
#6
The Ward Churchill situation, if I may use a DL analogy, is similar to what we have watched happen to people like Mark Israel, Gregg "Elmer" DesElms and Gus Sainz. Their comments were designed to boost their own stature and cause pain at someone else's expense. They conveniently used the First Amendment as a shield to defend their unsubstantiated claims and questionable logic.

Then they all, though each in their unique way, got their comeuppance. Ward Churchill's is linked above, Elmer and Sainz' downfalls are both well known around here, and Israel's is linked below.

old DL Truth link about Mark Israel
Reply
#7
ham Wrote:
Quote:The heading was "Ward Churchill wins, judge nullifies verdict." That explains it.

can't seem to find it...

Second paragraph. " Naves vacated an April ruling by a jury in the case that found that Churchill had been inappropriately fired."
Reply
#8
Fort Bragg Wrote:
ham Wrote:
Quote:The heading was "Ward Churchill wins, judge nullifies verdict." That explains it.

can't seem to find it...

Second paragraph.  " Naves vacated an April ruling by a jury in the case that found that Churchill had been inappropriately fired."

The article is confusing...
If the judge 'made legally void' an April ruling, and that turned to Churchill's advantage, why does the same
Quote:And Naves went out of his way to stress that he found the university's findings of misconduct credible, and that the return of Churchill to the faculty would be damaging.

Not surprisingly, the university praised the decision and Churchill denounced it.
?
It shows I have no degree in physics but I struggle to see what Churchill exactly won.
A.A Mole University
B.A London Institute of Applied Research
B.Sc Millard Fillmore
M.A International Institute for Advanced Studies
Ph.D London Institute of Applied Research
Ph.D Millard Fillmore
Reply
#9
ham Wrote:I struggle to see what Churchill exactly won.

Churchill lost the administrative hearing before the university, but won at trial.  I believe the latter is what Dennis was referring to when he said Churchill won.  

But then the judge entered judgment nov, so he ultimately lost.  Although he may eventually win again on appeal.  Or not.

I thought JNOV was something from the common law, but apparently it's a "practice in American courts," according to the Wiki Wankers.  So youse Canadian guys might not have run into it before.  

What does seem clear is that the trial judge really didn't much like Churchill, which is understandable.  If on December 8, 1941 somebody had said that the people who died at Pearl Harbor had it coming, losing his job would have been the least of his worries.  Common sense eventually prevailed even if the jury didn't get it.

There's free speech and then there's yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  I don't know where the line is exactly, but clearly (to me, and apparently, to the judge too) this Churchill asshole crossed it.
Reply
#10
Quote:But then the judge entered judgment nov, so he ultimately lost.  Although he may eventually win again on appeal.  Or not.

That is what I understood.

Quote:There's free speech and then there's yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  I don't know where the line is exactly, but clearly (to me, and apparently, to the judge too) this Churchill asshole crossed it.

I disagree.
He didn't direct a Muslim mob to kill people.
As for 'big pictures', did YOU loose any sleep over Iraqi children dying as a result of the embargo? I didn't, but I cannot pretend they didn't exist...so much for the Twin Towers.

What is interesting in the Churchill case -much as it is with the Williamson, Hayward and similar cases- is that he wrote the article but polemics erupted several years later (6 in the Joel Hayward case).
Now Churchill (much as Hayward and Williamson ) was a cherished pet of the establishment...but at some point big brother realized that Churchill's books that had been out for DECADES were a plagiarized jumble...Hmm...

I once realized I had inverted the attribution of two quotations in a postgraduate paper. I attributed XYZ to mr. Jones while it was mr. Smith & viceversa. It is clearly a mistake that went unnoticed and I corrected before submission...but if your name happens to be in the Irving zone, that alone warrants the termination of your career...
It's just sordid politics and I have a cogent example...
Esther Delisle is a Canadian student who submitted a controversial Ph.D thesis (published in 1992) basically accusing Lionel Groulx (Quebec nationalist clergyman of the 1930s) of being a crypto Nazi, antisemite etc.
Delisle's work was subsequently found by many to have taken liberties with sources, manipulating quotes etc; I haven't read it so I can't say.
Her case was spotlighted for quite a while...
On the B'NAI BRITH CANADA website one could read:
Quote:He gave three examples of this complacency, two in Canada and one worldwide. The first
Canadian example involves Esther Delisle, a Quebec non-Jewish academic who wrote a
series of books proving the existence of antisemitism as a major element throughout the
history of Quebec. Senator Grafstein told The Tribune that Delisle has, as a result of these
writings, been unable to find a job in Quebec. He berated the Quebec (including Montreal)
Jewish community
for failing to publicly champion Esther Delisle
.
http://www.bnaibrith.ca/article.php?id=205

Many Jewish celebrities and advocacy groups, including acclaimed writer Mordecai Richler (now deceased), rushed to Delisle's rescue...
but isn't 'sloppy scholarship'...sloppy scholarship in all cases?
Apparently not.
Delisle took self-important Groulx, who had written things in the 1930s that was fashionable to write in the 1930s, and ran away with what she could to the delight and on the service of a political cause...the color of her armband made all the difference between people cast out as bigots who (ab)use academia to serve disreputable causes and proud researchers in shining armor who do us a favor standing up for the truth...
A.A Mole University
B.A London Institute of Applied Research
B.Sc Millard Fillmore
M.A International Institute for Advanced Studies
Ph.D London Institute of Applied Research
Ph.D Millard Fillmore
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Woman Wins $11 Million Judgment Against Online Blog devilsadvocate 4 10,337 01-25-2013, 02:18 AM
Last Post: Herbert Spencer
  McCain Wins! Obama bin Biden 8 10,402 11-06-2008, 11:37 AM
Last Post: Don Dresden

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)