From Westword.
[Churchill] wrote: “I can think of no one who better reflects the principles and integrity of Colorado Republicans than Tom Lucero,” adding, “Who knows? He might even have what it takes to be the next Dick Cheney.”
Well said. But I’m not even sure Lucero’s got what it takes to be the next Sarah Palin.
Found by the gentlefolk of West Denver Copwatch.
Just got this in my email, I should be there. Show flyer here.
An Evening of Solidarity for Mutulu Shakur
Presented by Denver and Aurora CopWatch, Sisters of Color United for Education, and Denver ABC
Saturday, November 28th
Sisters of Color, 2895 8th Ave, Denver CO (8th and Federal across the street from the bus yard.)
7:30-12ish
Sliding scale 1-5$ (if you ain’t got it don’t let it stop you from coming)
Teach-in by Professor Ward Churchill
Live Music by Mike Wird, Ietef and Debajito (of Debajo Del Agua)
Hosted by Shareef Aleem
Missed this ’cause I’m out of town, but there was a great writeup of Denver civil rights attorney David Lane on the front page of yesterday’s Denver Post. I get accused of being everything from an anarchist to a militia member, and though I kind of like both of those tags, David Lane probably sums up my political beliefs better than anyone when he says that “the most dangerous entity on earth is a government that has the ability to do whatever it wants whenever it wants without control.”
In Colorado, if there’s a case where the government and the Constitution clash, Lane is often the attorney at the flashpoint. Whether it’s a teacher on a classroom tirade against George W. Bush or the Rainbow Family’s members fighting to get into a court hearing or the Hells Angels angry about being roused out of their clubhouse — or even the “Balloon Boy” — Lane is often the man in the middle.
And of all the controversial clients he has ever represented, none has been quite like Churchill, fired by CU after questions were raised about his scholarship. But those questions first arose after the emergence of an essay in which Churchill referred to some victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as “little Eichmanns.”
For Lane, it was a clear-cut First Amendment issue — he believed Churchill was fired not for plagiarism or fabrication, as CU leaders claimed, but for his speech.
And Lane won, sort of, when a jury sided with him, although the judge later issued a ruling tossing out the verdict. That case is still on appeal, and things may change.
One thing that hasn’t changed is the way Lane has been attacked for representing Churchill. Like the day he sat with a client, in prison for second-degree murder and facing a first-degree murder charge for a slaying behind bars.
“This guy’s doing second-degree murder time, facing the death penalty, and he says, ‘Can I ask you a personal question?’ ” Lane recalled. “I said, ‘Sure.’ He said, ‘No offense, but how do you represent a scumbag like Ward Churchill?’ “
From the Boulder Daily Camera:
Bethany Newill, in an affidavit accompanying a motion Churchill filed with the court late Tuesday asking the judge to amend his ruling earlier this month, wrote that her time on the jury was “wasted” as the result of Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves’ July 7 decision to vacate the verdict.
Updates coming.
Update: I also noticed this in the comments to the above Daily Camera article, posted by one John Q Public.
I’ve heard that pulling cases away from juries is pretty common for Judge Naves. He seems to prefer deciding the facts himself over allowing a jury’s decision to stand. Apparently, he did it again last week in another, separate case, basically removing the jury, making a decision, and forcing a settlement.
Interesting.
Update II: You can read Bethany Newill’s complete affadavit here. You can also read Ward Churchill complete motion to amend Naves’ ruling here.
Update III: You can read a comparison between Judge Naves’ ruling and CU’s pleadings here.
Jana left a comment here, pointing us to the National Coalition Against Censorship blog and website. I haven’t had much time yet, but they are duly bookmarked. Especially given this quote she posted:
Tolerance for politically unpopular views is not always evident on campuses, any more than it is in the world at large, but the university bears a special responsibility to protect freedom of thought and expression. The right to speak, write and think independently is at the core of higher education. It is up to members of the academy to convey this critical message not only to their students but to a larger community. This goal can be advanced if, in the future, similar controversies are addressed in a more deliberative fashion, with regard for all the interests and values at stake(…) (J. Bertin – NCAC)
And this from an article entitled Ward Churchill Redux:
It is virtually inevitable that holders of unconventional or controversial views will be attacked on professional grounds. The consequent chilling effect on professors’ freedom to express political views is likewise predictable. To prevent this damaging sequence of events, universities and scholars should always defend colleagues’ right to hold and express controversial views as a matter ofa principle, regardless of whether they agree with them or respect their scholarship.
Francis A. Beer and Joseph B. Juhász writing for the Boulder Daily Camera.
We should have liked to believe that the American legal system was a part of the Good America, that it would at least redress the balance and allow Churchill to speak without penalty. Instead it ruled that Churchill could indeed be investigated, disciplined, and punished for his speech and that, shockingly, he did not even have a right to legal appeal. Churchill’s experience teaches him, and us, to be very skeptical about the America to which we really belong.
From Pravda.
In reality, such an outcome was predestined. Blaming American foreign policy for spawning acts of terrorism automatically made Churchill a pariah in the eyes of the legal system, just as Malcolm X’s “chickens coming home to roost” statement in the wake of the John F. Kennedy assassination made him an outcast during the early 1960s.
Update: DU’s law school blog, The Race to the Bottom, has three more posts about the decision.
Offering this explanation for Judge Naves’ strange and — in my opinion — incredibly unethical decision to allow the trial to proceed all the way through before ruling on the quasi-judicial immunity issue:
Could it be that Judge Naves was shielding his ruling on the remedy by holding off ruling on quasi-judicial immunity until the trial was over? Maybe he was actually being crafty. If he had ruled on a motion for summary judgment earlier and stopped the trial at that point, then that ruling would have been subject to immediate appeal. Had he then been reversed, the trial itself would start at a much later time, leaving everything in limbo and perhaps taking Naves out of case on remand. This way, he accomplished three things: (1) expedited resolution of the issues, arguably important for the public interest; (2) exercised his own judicial discretion (or perhaps activism) to render a remedy he thought just, even if he is reversed on the severable immunity issue and (3) kept himself in the case, rather than risk it going to some other judge on remand.
Which primarily explains in more detail why Judge Naves waited until after the trial to rule on the quasi-judicial immunity issue:
One of the questions that must come to a thinking person’s mind is why would Judge Naves allow such an extensive trial to happen only to nullify it on what is essentially a legal technicality? The answer is that CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke did not raise this defense until after the trial on the basis that the specific elements would have to be proven in a trial-like setting anyway. If the jury had ruled for CU, there would be no reason to have raised the defense; since the jury ruled for Churchill on the First Amendment claim, O’Rourke could raise it as a post-trial motion.
Which explains Pat O’Rourke’s cleverness in essentially losing the jury trial, but winning through the quasi-judicial immunity ruling:
CU lawyer Pat O’Rourke has often been maligned throughout this trial. He wasn’t as dramatic or amusing as David Lane; his closing arguments were boring; his witnesses were impeached so often court observers began to cringe when they testified. But the startling outcome of Judge Naves’ Order is the legal version of the Tortoise and the Hare, or more specifically—the story of the Clever Trap.
Sleazy, yep. Cheap, sure. Effective, absolutely.
Update II: Michael Roberts writes about CU’s attempt to pry out-of-pocket legal fees out of Ward Churchill in Westword:
Hard to believe that CU really expects to get dime one of this amount — and even if Churchill is ultimately forced to pay, the sum will probably be dwarfed by the legal costs incurred while trying to pry it out of him. So why bother? Well, Churchill has inflicted loads of lousy publicity on the institution for several years now — at least from CU’s perspective. And the bad PR continues on HBO, which is airing Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech, a documentary that makes the folks lobbying for Churchill’s ouster look downright McCarthyite. This is one way for CU to return the favor.
Petty, yep. Vindictive to the point of stupidity, sure. Just what we expect from CU, absolutely.
Update III: As CU winds up their spin machine, it’s worth remembering that they didn’t win this case. They got off for the same reason the occasional rapist, murderer or child molester gets off even though they’re guilty as hell and the evidence proves it: a sleazy lawyer and a technicality.
Update IV: The appeal’s on the way. From the Denver Post:
“We would be saying, this is flat-out wrong. He is extending quasi-judicial immunity someplace where it has never been before,” Lane said.
Update V: Anthropologist Max Forte weighs in:
When I say that the freedom of academics takes a serious blow, it is because Judge Larry Naves — incidentally, a man who allegedly got accepted into university with the assistance of the father of Condoleeza Rice (source) — has decided, in very contradictory terms, that university administrators both represent faculty, and, are like judges and therefore benefit from immunity from prosecution from faculty (not just vacating the jury’s verdict, but the whole trial). Simply put, they are free to fire, presumably on any grounds, at any time. This also effectively puts an end to anything meaningful about tenure.
Update VI: There’s an interesting post on the National Review’s site which, while noting the quasi-judicial immunity issue, takes far greater exception to the rest of Judge Naves’ ruling:
Even after vacating the jury’s verdict, the judge engages in what seems to be a superfluous discussion of Churchill’s request for reinstatement (after all, if the jury liability finding is vacated, there is no real basis for equitable relief). In this discussion, he misunderstands the role of nominal damages in constitutional cases, conflates damage awards with liability determinations, grants a staggering amount of discretion to university officials who terminate troublesome employees, and essentially uses Churchill’s protected speech as a pretext for justifying the university’s adverse actions. The message the judge sends to faculty is clear: Get along with your colleagues — or else.
Scott Robinson, legal analyst for the Denver Post, has an interesting piece in today’s paper clarifying the oddity of Naves’ decision that the CU regents are a quasi-judicial authority. Although his words are pretty measured, it’s clear that Robinson doesn’t think much of Naves’ ruling.
The ruling by Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves that set aside the jury’s $1 verdict in ex-professor Ward Churchill’s civil rights wrongful-termination lawsuit sets the stage for the inevitable appeal, an appeal that presents complicated and difficult legal issues that could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Update: Kevin O’Brien, writing for the University of Denver’s legal blog, The Race to the Bottom, is just as stumped by Judge Naves’ decision as the Denver Post’s legal analyst.
What is remarkable about the judge’s decision is that it adopted almost every argument proffered by CU’s legal briefs. Reading today’s trial decision felt like I was re-reading the CU briefs. For example, by not awarding even front pay in lieu of reinstatement, Judge Naves effectively blocked an award of attorney fees to Churchill on the basis that the $1 award represents a Pyhrric victory invalidating the award of attoreny fees under existing case law (in the event his quasi-judicial immunity ruling in favor of CU is overturned and the reinstatement and front-pay issues are no longer moot).
O’Brien also offers this, which I hadn’t even considered:
[I]t is clear today that Judge Naves’ ostensibly one-sided decision will raise the issue on whether he should have recused himself from hearing the case based upon the appearance of a conflict of interest since he is a CU law school alumnus.
That’s an interesting point to consider, although as O’Brien goes on to make clear, Naves’ alumni status alone does not constitute a “serious, objective risk of actual bias.” Anyway, The Race to the Bottom promises to “dissect” Naves’ ruling on its legal merits over the next few weeks, which should be required reading for anyone interested in the case.
Update II: Michael Roberts has a piece in for Westword (which kindly mentions me) and has this salient point to offer:
On the surface, this judgment makes little sense, since Naves could have come to this conclusion without even going through the motions of a trial.
Update III: The New York Times story also ends with a quote from Scott Robinson, noting the “extraordinary” nature of Naves’ ruling.
Update IV: There’s so much good stuff in The Race to the Bottom piece. Here’s another tidbit:
In effect, Judge Naves has, unless reversed on appeal, sanitized CU of the taint of the jury’s decision that CU terminated him not for research misconduct, but for expressing his first amendment rights in violation of the Constitution. Thus, not only is Churchill not entitled to the $1 jury award and the vindication the award represented, but his attorneys cannot seek reimbursement of their attorney fees conjectured to be over $1,000,000 since Churchill did not prevail in his Section 1983 first amendment claim. Most of this cost would never have been incurred by Churchill and his attorneys (or, for that matter, the jury’s time in sitting through a month long trial) had the issue of quasi-judicial immunity been determined before trial by Judge Naves through a motion for summary judgment that as a matter of law CU would prevail.
Note that last piece. As Michael Roberts pointed out above, essentially the whole trial was a charade. And a particularly vicious one as arranged by Naves, in that he seems to have let it continue solely to squander David Lane and Ward Churchill’s time and resources.
Update V: The Colorado Independent has a GREAT piece up on their site about Naves’ ruling, entitled “Judge rules against Churchill, grants CU Board odd absolutist powers”.
The jury decided that Churchill was in fact fired because talk radio hosts didn’t like what he wrote about the 9/11 attacks and because neither did GOP Gov. Bill Owens and neither did the CU Board of Regents — or at least that the Board didn’t think Churchill’s opinions were worth defending in the name of academic freedom and freedom of expression in general. Yesterday’s ruling suggests Judge Naves also places little value on Ward Churchill’s right to free expression, regurgitating in the ruling the defeated arguments of the state. And, not to be outdone, the Denver Post this morning jumps on board, regurgitating the regurgitations of the bench, reporting as fact in the second paragraph of its story the specious allegations of academic misconduct at the heart of the trial and that the state failed to substantiate for the jury.
Update VI: Democracy Now offers this in today’s show:
In Denver, a judge has denied former University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill’s bid to return to his old job despite a jury’s finding he was wrongfully dismissed. Churchill sued the school after he was fired from a tenured position on charges of research misconduct. But Churchill maintains that the allegations were a pretext to remove him for his political beliefs. In April, a jury ruled in Churchill’s favor and ordered the school to pay his attorney fees. But on Tuesday, Chief Judge Larry Naves of Denver District Court said university officials are legally protected from Churchill’s bid to reverse his firing because they were acting as judicial officers. Churchill says he plans to appeal. His lawyer, David Lane said: “This is judicial activism in its worst form… a jury said Ward Churchill’s free speech was violated, and yet Judge Naves goes on for almost 50 pages, saying in so many words, ‘Too bad.’”
Update VII: Even the Wall Street Journal is noting that Judge Naves’ ruling “seems a little screwy”.
Update VIII: Marc Bousquet has piece on The Chronicle Review’s site, elegantly entitled “Colorado Judge Mugs Churchill”. (It’s also cross-posted on one of my favorite literary sites, The Valve.)
The crowing by the University of Colorado administration after the latest twist in the Churchill case illustrates this claim pretty well. Provost Phil DiStefano seems to have huffed a few lines of Hogwarts Ambiguity Powder to keep a straight face while dubbing CU’s trampling on Churchill’s academic freedom, subversion of faculty process and transparent political thuggery “a victory for faculty governance.”
He also notes Naves’ status as a CU alum.
DiStefano couldn’t have gotten his broomstick off the ground, though, without the teamwork of loyal CU alum Judge Larry J. Naves. The latter waved his wand of Dumbledorean Complexity over the jury’s verdict in order to vacate it, claiming that upon further reflection—you know, after the jury came up with a verdict he didn’t like—he believed that the Colorado regents were immune from lawsuits!
This is getting more and more interesting.
Update IX: I’ve been looking everywhere for full audio, or even a transcript, of the press conference given yesterday by David Lane, Ward Churchill’s attorney. As far as I can tell, it’s not on the internet. You can, however, hear snippets of it on yesterday’s Caplis and Silverman show, here, starting at 35:15.
Update X: From Denver’s main anti-Churchill site, Pirateballerina:
We contacted CU defense attorney Patrick O’Rourke this morning via email and learned that he intends to bill Churchill for out-of-pocket legal expenses, such as deposition transcripts, out-of-state travel, and witness fees. “We haven’t totaled those yet,” O’Rourke told us, “but those expenses will probably be significant.”
Rampant corruption, contempt for the Constitution, judicial thuggery, and now highway robbery. Seems par for course for team CU/Naves.
Update XI: I wish I could say I’m surprised about CU’s intent to bill Ward Churchill, but I’m not. CU has made it clear all along that their intent has been to not only trample Ward Churchill’s civil rights, but to completely destroy him.
I know Ward well enough to know that that’s not possible, but also I know CU’s administration well enough to know that they’d love nothing more.
Update XII: Good God. Even the rightwing educational watchdog group ACTA thinks Judge Naves’ ruling is off the mark. (Via Michael Roberts at Westword.)
The judge’s decision? It gets some things right, but is also problematic. Yes, peer review is critical to shared governance, academic autonomy, and professional standards. Yes, to reinstate Churchill would send an awful message to students — that academic standards don’t matter. But is the authority of trustees in fact comparable to that of judges here, as the opinion says? I am not so sure.
That’s pretty rich, in that ACTA was responsible for a portion of the drummed-up political pressure brought to bear on the University of Colorado to fire Churchill.
Update XIII: CU’s intent bill to Ward Churchill for out-of-pocket expenses is now in the Denver Post:
The University of Colorado will bill Ward Churchill for more than $10,000 in out-of-pocket costs the school incurred while defending against his wrongful termination suit, the university’s lawyer said today.
Update XIV: And from the Boulder Daily Camera:
CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke said he plans to file for recovery of those costs — which include flying witnesses in and out of Colorado and creating deposition transcripts — over the next 15 days and said the amount would be in the “five figures” and likely just shy of $50,000.
This is just conjecture, but it doesn’t seem impossible to me that this could be an attempt by CU to blackmail Ward Churchill out of filing an appeal. Right? Play up the amount of money they’ll be billing him in the local media, and then follow it with a phone call letting him know that they’ll rip up the invoice if he’ll only agree not to appeal. Hell, given what we’ve seen from CU so far, a little extortion hardly seems farfetched.
(From Uncut Conscience.)
If you’re an American Indian in the United States of America, whether you are a Lakota or a Navajo, a tenured professor or a Nobel Peace Prize winner, or an elected president of another country, you will not receive justice in any form from the white people of America.
They attacked Vine Deloria, Jr. (on the day of his funeral), Rigoberta Menchu and Evo Morales. An Indian on a reservation can’t get justice. And a tenured professor can get unconstitutionally thrown out, vindicated by a jury of his peers in a court of law, and it doesn’t matter.
Everyone I’ve named cannot fight back. Evo Morales has to worry about being the president of a country; Rigoberta Menchu has to continue working for her people. Vine Deloria is dead. Indian people on reservations have no power of any kind. Only Ward Churchill has the ability to fight back and win, and it’s still not good enough. They still quash him.
The American Indian has been living at Guantánamo Bay since the founding of the United States of America.
(Just got the following from Ward Churchill’s wife, Natsu Saito.)
July 7, 2009
On April 2, 2009, after hearing evidence for a month, a Denver jury unanimously found that Ward Churchill had been fired from the University of Colorado not because of research misconduct but in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment.
After more than four years of political attacks on Ward Churchill, a clear statement had been made: the University of Colorado had violated the U.S. Constitution when it fired Churchill, a tenured full professor of American Indian Studies.
The normal remedy in such cases? Reinstatement.
Today, July 7, 2009, Judge Larry Naves of the Denver District Court threw out the jury’s verdict, adopting the University’s argument that the Regents have “quasi-judicial” immunity from such lawsuits. In essence, this means that the Regents and University administrators are free to continue to violate the Constitution.
In a 42-page opinion lifted wholesale from the University’s pleadings, Judge Naves went on to explain why Ward Churchill should not be given front pay, back pay, or be reinstated.
All of these are irrelevant, of course, if the jury’s verdict is not upheld. But the fact that the judge went to such pains to adopt the University’s arguments — which often directly contravened the factual record in this case — speaks volumes.
This ruling simply confirms what we have observed so often. When given access to the facts, regular people on the street can make clear, reasoned decisions that uphold constitutional values. It is rare, however, to find persons in positions of power who will not bow to political pressure.
Attorney David Lane will, of course, appeal this decision. Ward Churchill’s reaction? “I can’t think of any way to improve upon Steve Earle’s line from The Hard Way: ‘There are some who break and bend. I’m the other kind.’”
Judge Naves has ruled that the University of Colorado does not have to reinstate Ward Churchill. From the Denver Post.
“I conclude that reinstating Professor Churchill would entangle the judiciary excessively in matters that are more appropriate for academic professionals. In making this decision, I give considerable weight to the United States Supreme Court’s recognition that ‘considerations of profound importance counsel restrained judicial review of the substance of academic decisions,’ ” Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves, said in his 42-page decision.
More to come. Much more, I’ll bet.
Update: You can download Judge Naves’ decision here.
Update II: A quick thought. Obviously, I’m disappointed by this, but hardly surprised. Most of you who know me know that I predicted a Churchill win in the court room all along. You’ve also probably noticed that I haven’t been making any predictions about Churchill’s reinstatement whatsoever. The reason for this should be obvious.
The University of Colorado lost the court case. Hands down. CU’s attorney, Pat O’Rourke, got his head handed to him. But, and a big but, he did a very good job of ingratiating himself with Judge Naves, and Judge Naves certainly seemed receptive to those willing to do a little groveling. This is pretty clearly shown in the pattern of rulings for CU handed down by Naves, and it made it real hard to see Naves doing other than nullifying the jury’s decision (damn activist judges!).
Again, this isn’t surprising. O’Rourke seems to be an old hand at ingratiating himself with those in power. Indeed, given O’Rourke’s performance in the court room, I think it’s fair to say that he’s only managed to get where he is by doing so.
It sure as hell hasn’t been natural talent.
So, unless I miss my guess, on to appeals.
Update III: Yep, we’re on to appeals.
Update IV: Y’know an interesting exercise might be to compare portions of Judge Naves’ ruling to, say, some of CU’s motions.
For instance, I stumbled on this line in Naves’ ruling:
Professor Churchill argues that the University is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because the University waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.
Something about it struck me as oddly familiar. So, having way too much free time, I flipped over to CU’s Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Quasi-Judicial Immunity, did a quick search, and found this:
The University concedes that it has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.
I’m no kind of lawyer, but it doesn’t seem entirely on the up-and-up for a judge to simply copy portions of his ruling verbatim from motions filed by one side or the other. If nothing else, it’s plagiarism, right? Which is pretty ironic, given the case and Naves’ ruling for CU.
Don’t ask me, but it’s a hit.
Speaking of Philip Roth, I recently went on a binge, and was oddly surprised to find the term “little Eichmann” – which landed Ward Churchill in such hot water — in Roth’s The Counterlife. As far as I can tell, that’s the first usage in print.
Now you know.
The Boulder Daily Camera — and, yeah, I’m reading the thing for the first time in months — has their semi-live, semi-updated blog of the hearing going here.
Update: No ruling today, but it should be coming early next week. David Lane, however, had enough fun with Dean Todd Gleeson (3:07 update) that I’ll probably be able to stand the wait.
Update II: There’s audio around from the local radio shows. I’ll post links to some in an update shortly.
Update III: The only Colorado journalist who seems to get what’s at stake in Ward Churchill’s reinstatement: Michael Roberts.
Update IV: KHOW neo-Stalinist shitbirds Caplis and Silverman have done something useful for perhaps the first time in their lives, and posted Ward Churchill’s full testimony here. And if you can’t get enough, you can also listen to their show, here, here, and here, which includes an interview with David Lane, if nothing else. I’ll listen to it today and update with highlights.
Update V: Nope, Caplis and Silverman, still useless. The audio which they claimed to be all of Ward Churchill’s testimony is only about two minutes long. As my dear old grandfather used to say, the geniuses at KHOW could fuck up a ball bearing with a rubber mallet. Anyway, maybe they’ll get it fixed, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
Update VI: The University of Denver law school’s legal blog, The Race to the Bottom, which has pretty much set the standard for coverage of the Ward Churchill trial (for all but a few fringe cranks, that is), has two posts about yesterday’s hearing:
Which offers this tidbit:
Professor Churchill’s testimony was—as ever—eloquent. He emphasized that he filed a lawsuit as “a matter of principle to preserve the concept of academic freedom, which is to say that political powers cannot silence professors because they disagree with their beliefs.” (all quotes approximate) “And to obtain justice, restitution, restoration to the position that jury found I was illegally removed from.” Professor Churchill reasserted his trial testimony that when asked if he wanted money, he said no.
And:
Which makes this prediction:
My prediction is that Judge Naves will rule on the law, which is that reinstatement is the preferred remedy unless the offending employer can prove that reinstatement will severely damage the violating employer’s enterprise. The burden of proof is with the First Amendment violator, and CU does not seem to have met that burden. While the witnesses—especially Professor Jessor—spoke passionately about the importance of research integrity to maintain academic standards, this is a pretty esoteric concept.
They are, as we’ve come the expect, exactly the kind of fair, balanced, and accurate reporting which it has been nearly impossible to find in the Denver media.
Update VII: All right, I lied. As much as I wanted to listen to the Caplis and Silverman show to provide highlights, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. Sorry.
Tomorrow is the full day reinstatement hearing for Ward Churchill. He has already won his civil suit against the University of Colorado, and tomorrow Judge Naves will hear testimony on whether Churchill is to be reinstated. According to the Boulder Daily Camera (which, deliciously, has been anti-Churchill from the get go):
The judge has the option of ruling from the bench at the end of the hearing or issuing a written decision later. Neither the judge’s clerk nor the attorneys in the case would hazard a guess as to when Naves might announce his decision.
If you can make it to the hearing, it’ll be here:
Denver District Court Courtroom 6
1437 Bannock St.
Denver, CO
80202
A jury has already found that Churchill’s civil rights were violated by CU. Reinstatement is justice.
Update: You gotta love this tidbit from the Daily Camera article:
When asked to comment, Churchill criticized the Camera in an e-mail but did not directly address the upcoming hearing.
Would be nice if they reported the nature of the criticism, but that’s probably a little much to ask.
Reviews of the Liz Garbus documentary Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech are starting to trickle in. From Popmatters.
Here the film deploys a strategy it repeats throughout, which is to bring in a right-wing representative or two in order to seem even-handed. (Another strategy, inserting choice bits of popular cultural illustrations, likeMr. Smith Goes to Washington, the animated Animal Farm, and The Big Lebowski, is more distracting than pointed.) David Horowitz argues against Churchill and other liberal professors who reportedly dominate university campuses, saying he means to “protect conservative students” from exposure to left-wing radicalism. But the case against Churchill quickly veered into hysteria (“Can he be tried for either sedition or treason?” asks Bill O’Reilly), and his dismissal, based on a committee investigation that found him “professionally disqualified” rather than liable for this single utterance, looks especially shady, as the school was able to preserve its apparent support of free speech but eliminate the free speaker who brought such grief.
And, from the New York Times.
Ms. Garbus’s premise is that the guarantees of the First Amendment have been under siege since 9/11. Wars, the film notes, have always made the government skittish. She begins with the case of Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor who found himself facing an inquiry after his strong remarks that the United States brought the Sept. 11 attacks on itself. (In a film in which the phrase “free speech” is heard a lot, Mr. Churchill gives the best assessment of it: “If it comes at a price, it’s not free.”)
Liz Garbus, the director behind Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech which features Ward Churchill, has another documentary, The Farm: Life Inside Angola, available on Hulu. I ain’t all the way through it, but what I’ve seen so far looks fantastic.
The documentary Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, which features Ward Churchill, premieres on HBO on June 29th.
I’ve probably said this about thirty times, but I was interviewed for the thing. I don’t have HBO, though, so I guess I’ll never know if I made the cut. Sigh.
A couple of months back, CU students sponsored an evening with Bill Ayers, Derrick Jensen, and Ward Churchill in support of Churchill’s reinstatement lawsuit against CU. You can find video of the Bill Ayers and Ward Churchill portions here.
The savvier of you will note some so-called security dipshit standing around behind Churchill with his hands in his pockets, not looking real tough. It’s me. They let me show up to these things like you’d throw a dog a bone, but the legitimate badasses on stage were Brad and Alicia Gumm. There were death threats galore leading up the event, but thanks to those two, Messrs Ayers, Churchill, and Jensen couldn’t have been safer in an AIM bunker.
