Friday, July 20, 2007
Churchill Saga Reaching End of the Beginning
I finally saw a newspaper today while studying at the library, and was surprised to see that on on Tuesday, the whole Ward Churchill Saga will come to huge juncture. The Regents are scheduled to hold a hearing and vote on Hank Brown's recommendation to fire Churchill. Notwithstanding the inevitable lawsuit, it is just interesting to see this whole imbrogli , which began our first year, come to a conclusion during the bar exam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
It's clear that the firing of Churchill will be in retaliation for the exercise of his first amendment right to free speech - and that's not constitutionally permissible. The investigation of Churchill's academic work was sparked by his comments after 9/11 - and the school has searched for an excuse to fire the guy ever since. That opens CU to liability.
The "due process" and resulting suggestions made by Getches, Wesson, et al will likely be ignored by Hank Brown and his fellow conservatives... anyone else notice a recent trend of conservatives ignoring the law and doing what they decide is "right"? Do I see a political campaign in Hank Brown's future?
I don't exactly agree with Churchill's comments, but I disagree even more with CU's approach to this issue. The so called "hearing" for Churchill this week will be a kangaroo court.
When Churchill is fired (and it does seem like he will be fired), the legal circus begins.
I thought Churchill was getting fired because he plagerized his research and published works?
I thought that Wesson's recommendation was that he be fired, although she would let someone else make that decision.
Hmmm...I guess I never knew that Mimi Wesson was a "conservative."
Did you read the 125 page document at all?
Ohh - IN YOUR FACE!
Watch me exercise my 1st Amendment rights: Good riddance to the plagiarizing wacko. Churchill is going to have to show that the administration's justification is mere pretext. This will be difficult, as he'll likely need evidence that similarly situated professors were treated differently. In other words, he needs evidence that individuals who also plagiarized were not terminated. Since plagiarism is the ultimate academic offense, I imagine that this will be difficult. Additionally, the timing weighs in CU's favor. It took nearly 6 years for CU to terminate him.
But who knows, as thelawstudentformerlyknownas has recently informed me that CU has a conservative bend. I had no idea, as every report I've ever seen (and I'm going into year 7 at the University), has documented that CU has one of the most liberal faculties in the country. I think I will take my resume to the Office of Legal Affairs and hope that they offer this avowedly liberal law student one of those positions that's always posted.
I agree with the previous post. His 9/11 comments gave him and his "research" the publicity he no doubt wanted. Here is the lesson: if you don't want people to scrutinize your work that is both partly fictitious and partly stolen from someone else, then don't draw a lot of attention to yourself (e.g. comparing 9/11 victims to someone who masterminded the holocaust right after 9/11). I fail to understand why students and professors, who claim to love and cherish the freedom given by academia, would support this guy. Ward is a huge black eye for the academic system as a whole. This paints a terrible picture of what happens on college campus and any self-respecting professor who engages in good, scholarly research should be offended by Ward's actions and supporters.
I guess that because I care about academic standards I must be a neo-con, right?
Yo formerlyknowas,
You just got owned! Damn!
MS
Also - where did anon posting go? Are you guys afraid that Ward Churchill is going to come and post some protected speech up here?
Despite the haters, the prediction that Churchill would be fired and then the media circus would begin was prettttty right on - and that was my main point.
The administration investigated whether they could fire Churchill for his 9/11 comments - and they determined they could not. Then, they started an "investigation" into his academic work over the years. The school's retaliation against him for the exercise of his free speech rights is not allowable - irrespective of whatever they found. Claiming that the results of this tainted process are (legally) legit is putting the cart in front of the horse – it’s like a 4th A fruit of the poisonous tree type argument.
I never said CU is conservative - read closer. I said Hank Brown and his supporters are conservative; my understanding is that Brown exercises, and is subject to, considerable political power and pressure that was put to use regarding Churchill’s termination. I didn’t say everyone who thinks Churchill should be fired is a neo-con; I do, however, think that firing Churchill is a part of Hank Brown’s conservative agenda – if you disagree, ask one of your professors about the tension regarding free speech and expression among faculty on campus in recent years. Also, recall, for example, the case of MK, a CU undergrad who made inflammatory comments (but non-threatening, non-fighting words) in the wake of the V-Tech killings – he was arrested and suspended from CU. Thus, I don’t think the Churchill case is the only example of CU’s administration clamping down on free speech rights at times of turmoil – and during times of turmoil we need our free speech rights the most.
Legal eagle, this is a First Amendment issue as you note - but you use equal protection language re free exercise of religion clause - and the standard isn't whether Churchill was treated differently than "similarly situated" people.
Also, arguing that Churchill was basically asking for scrutiny of his works by making inflammatory comments is again backwards logic: personally, I think CU's scrutiny/investigation of Churchill's work resulted from Churchill's exercise of his free speech (inflammatory comments) - and retaliation against political opnions isn't legal. This isn't your typical public employee - he has tenure, and entitlements under due process. There may be an argument that scrutiny of Churchill's publications came from sources outside CU which spurred a full blown CU investigation... but I've not heard that offered as a justification. The atmosphere on campus was poisoned with the intent to find a justification to fire Churchill, thus the “academic investigation” of him.
If Wesson's position was that Churchill should be fired, then I apologize for wrongly attributing that position to her; my understanding was that the committee she was on did not find that Churchill should be terminated.
Finally, Mushroom Stamp, I agree with previous comments you've made that people need to lighten up a bit in law school. You might agree that people need to avoid being dick to one another in law school and practice. Perhaps there's a happy medium: point is, if you're going to play the role of the Blawg's obnoxious peanut gallery - and every blog needs one, sort of - you need to be funny in the process to get away with being obnoxious. I’m not the first one to suggest this.
"Claiming that the results of this tainted process are (legally) legit is putting the cart in front of the horse – it’s like a 4th A fruit of the poisonous tree type argument."
Since there was no search, in any relevant sense, this bears no resemblance to a 4th Amendment problem. Churchill's writings are public-- they are out there for all to see. The administration did not have to invade his privacy to discover this. His comments invited cursory inspection of his works. What is the problem with that?
Churchill screwed up and was fired for it. I am sorry that you do not like the fact that Brown (and many others) wanted to terminate him for what he said. They might have been looking for an excuse to fire Churchill, but they found a legitimate one simply by examining what was out there for all to see. That is fair game.
Again, to assert that the firing was in retaliation for Chruchill's comments is begging the question. Re-read the previous posts. The tenure panels recommended firing because of academic reasons (you only purport to show that the investigation was retaliation). The Regents voted based on the same. Where is the retaliation here?
I understand that its not a 4th Amendment issue: when I said "it's like a 4th A argument," that was my signal that I was making an analogy - and the retaliation argument does bear resemblance to the fruit of the poisonous tree argument: in this case, the investigation of how to fire Churchill because his speech was offensive does not support any notion of legitimacy in a subsequent investigation to attempt to accomplish what their free speech investigation could not do: get Churchill fired.
I don't purport that Churchill was only fired for his free speech - true, CU says it was for academic violations, but that's just a pretext (see below). The regents can say whatever they want about their rationale - you don't expect them to say that they fired him for plagarism because they couldnt fire him for speaking his mind, right?? I don't expect everyone - or anyone on this board apparently - to agree with me.
But, regarding the question of "where is the retaliation?" my previous post says:
"The administration investigated whether they could fire Churchill for his 9/11 comments - and they determined they could not. Then, they started an "investigation" into his academic work over the years. The school's retaliation against him for the exercise of his free speech rights is not allowable - irrespective of whatever they found."
I think that lays out the retaliation argument pretty clearly.
Oh, and it's not just that I don't like the fact the school wants to fire Churchill for his free speech - the Constitution doesn't like it either.
Douche,
Obnoxious peanut gallery comment aside, my point is that you totally got owned on both of your posts. Seriously, all of your Constitutional references are laughable. Seriously, I actually laughed. Furthermore, as far as your first post's main point being about a media circus - you could have fooled me - it was the very last half sentence of your long post (as usual) about nonsensical constitutional b.s.
As far as the Constitution not liking the firing - I just spoke with her this morning, and she said she was cool with it. Mostly she was concerned with real issues like the Patriot Act, Habeas Corpus, you know - shit that matters.
The bottom line is a dumb ass got fired for a good reason: plagiarism. The investigation of his academic work was started because of the comments that he made. I don't see the problem; would he have been fired if not for the plagiarism?
Free Paris.
Churchill would have been fired - and not for plagarism - if it was constitutional to do so. The school substituted that bad option for another where they can feign the argument that Churchill's firing is not pretextual.
My constitutional references are laughable? You're still not funny, but you are arguing that the First Amendment isn't "shit that matters" !?! I will give you credit though, at least you finally posted something that remotely approaches a substantive commment on this blog. Nicely done. Glad to see you began your last post with "obnoxious peanut gallery comment ASIDE..." = true!
Free Paris was funny, the rest was eeeh, but its better than your recent posts - 4 out of 10.
Oh yeah, you noted my main point was the last sentence in my post - the end is usually where one might expect to find a conclusion, dick.
Douche,
Three things:
1. The 1st Amendment is great amendment, don't get me wrong; your use of it is what is a joke.
2. Pretext is irrelevant - he did the crime (plagiarized work), now he gets to do the time.
3. A main point will usually appear in all parts of any writing - the introduction, the body, etc. An ASIDE will usually appear at the very beginning (as it did in my last post) or at the very end (like yours).
Actually, one more thing:
My favorite blizzard at DQ is Peanut Butter cups - get to mixing.
Pretext may not be relevant to you, but it is relevant in a First Amendment context. You seem unwilling to reconsider your position, and apparently have not looked up the law.
I suppose you want me to cite some more laughable constitutional references?
If a jury finds that Churchill's free speech was a "motivating factor" in CU's "adverse actions" against him then the decision to do so was unconstititional. That means Churchill would be reinstated, and he'd get damages.
Here's some mandatory authority, for that ass (Maldonado v. City of Altus, 433 F.3d 1294, 1309-1310 (10th Cir. 2006)):
"The Eighth Circuit's approach in Helvey resembles one we have adopted in assessing First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants other than the plaintiff's employer. We have stated that "any form of official retaliation for exercising one's freedom of speech, including prosecution, threatened prosecution, bad faith investigation, and legal harassment, constitutes an infringement of that freedom." Lackey v. County of Bernalillo, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 75, No. 97-2265, 1999 WL 2461, at **3 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 1999). We have required proof of the following elements: (1) that the plaintiff "was engaged in constitutionally protected activity"; (2) that the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff "to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity"; and (3) that the "defendant's adverse action was substantially motivated as a response to the plaintiff's exercise of constitutionally protected conduct." Id. That approach has been followed by other circuits. See, e.g, Mendocino Environmental Center v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300-01 (9th Cir. 1999); Bloch v. Ribar, 156 F.3d 673, 678 (6th Cir. 1998)."
Ok, MS, your turn. Enjoy your peanut butter cup blizzard.
Are you kidding me? You really are a douche.
"The humaniod ones, they've been sent here to prove that they're worthy to become adults." Alien v. Predator Twentieth Century Fox (2004); see also Freddy v. Jason, New Line Cinema (2003)(Welcome to my nightmare, bitch).
That's all you've got??? First you say I'm wrong on the law, so I lay it out there for you, and instead of responding all you have is more name calling and sci-fi references? Very weak.
First, I was using employment law language. Second, from what I understand, individuals outside of the administration complained about Churchill's lack of academic integrity. It's not exactly like CU perpetrated some misguided witchhunt. The Cherokee nation has stated that Churchill, despite his repeated claims to the contrary, is not a member of the tribe. In summary (since this is where the conclusion is supposed to go), he's an embarassment to the school and I won't miss him one bit.
1. I didn't say that you were wrong on the law, I said (properly) that you are a douche.
2. Freddy v. Jason is not Sci-Fi, it is a Horror movie.
3. The name-calling is quite appropriate: Q. What kind of douche does any research to argue with a guy named Mushroomstamp on a blog? A. A total douche.
4. I know you are currently referred to as douche, what were you formerly known as? Hakim?
Post a Comment