Ward Churchill’s got a new piece in the Boulder Weekly, which includes one of the greatest stories of human failure of all time.

Back in the fall of 1993, the Denver Metro klavern of the Ku Klux Klan was casting about rather frantically for a means to redeem the humiliation of having been publicly routed by a surging mass of irate black teenagers amidst an attempt to commemorate Adolf Hitler’s birthday on the steps of the Colorado Capitol.

Their solution, brilliant in its way, was to have Thom Robb, fundamentalist minister cum Grand Dragon of the Arkansas-based Knights of the KKK (subsequently retitled “Christian Concepts, Inc.”), to observe the 1994 Martin Luther King holiday by giving a speech in front of the old courthouse adorning Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall.

Predictably  –  at least it can be said with certainty that Robb predicted it – a host of the more purportedly enlightened denizens of the People’s Republic sallied forth at the designated time to denounce the pastor’s unabashed celebration of white supremacist values with chants and placards demanding the utmost “tolerance” of racial/ethnic “diversity.”

Unfortunately – or not, depending on one’s point of view – things didn’t go quite as those on the “antiracist” side of the confrontation anticipated.

Fixing his gaze upon the small sea of hecklers neatly ensconced behind rows of metal barriers erected by the ever-growing overburden of Boulder’s finest – this, it was claimed, was to “ensure his safety,” although it would’ve taken someone a lot less canny than Thom Robb to worry that whatever protestors might turn out in the veritable buckle of the granola belt would so much as sip a cup of herbal tea without first reciting the Pledge of Nonviolence – the pastor seemed downright amused.

Then, having to all appearances extracted a full measure of mirth from the spectacle, and making even fuller use of his PA system, he delivered an utterly devastating blow (albeit, sadly, I can only repeat it in paraphrase). “What’s all this yapping about ‘diversity’?” he wanted to know.

“The town we’re standing in is 94 percent white. That’s why I’m here. This place is exactly what [the Klan] is trying to duplicate all across the country. If it’s racial diversity you’re looking for, you might want to consider moving to Newark or Detroit. But, hey, you’re not about to do that, are you? Ever wonder why that might be?”

Sometimes the effects produced by a little dose of reality can be amazing.

A queasy silence settled over the crowd even before Robb’s verbal roundhouse was complete. People shifted from foot to foot, not-so-figuratively squirming in place, the message boards they’d been holding lowering steadily, as if the signs themselves were wilting.

By ones and twos, then in somewhat larger clots, they began, almost furtively, to slink away.

The rest.

Y’know, it’s not very often I cheer for the klan.

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.