No job, no money for Ward Churchill

Parent Cafe
1

<p>And I am sure he will appeal, but I have been interested in what happens, as both of our children attend CU.</p>

<p>Taken from the Boulder Daily Camera at: [Judge:</a> No job, no money for Ward Churchill : Ward Churchill : Boulder Daily Camera](<a href=“http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/07/ward-churchill-job-university-colorado-boulder/]Judge:”>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jul/07/ward-churchill-job-university-colorado-boulder/)</p>

<p>"BOULDER, Colo. — In a resounding defeat for ousted University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, a judge decided Tuesday to neither give the controversial professor his job back at CU nor award him any financial compensation for his dismissal from the school nearly two years ago.</p>

<p>The ruling from Chief Denver District Judge Larry Naves, which was released this afternoon, comes in stunning contrast to a jury’s verdict from a civil trial Churchill brought against the school earlier this year, in which six jurors determined that CU had unlawfully stripped Churchill of his job for expressing his political beliefs in a controversial essay he wrote about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.</p>

<p>Naves ruled that CU’s regents enjoy absolute immunity from lawsuits in their roles as “administrative officials performing functions analogous to those of judges and prosecutors,” as long as several conditions are met.</p>

<p>The judge ruled that the regents acted in that protected capacity when they decided to dismiss Churchill.</p>

<p>“In this case, it is clear that the Board of Regents performed a quasi-judicial function and acted in a quasi-judicial capacity when it heard Professor Churchill’s case and terminated his employment,” Naves wrote.</p>

<p>He ordered the jury’s verdict on Churchill’s claim that he was retaliated against for expressing his First Amendment rights be vacated, saying the regents’ quasi-judicial status protects them from that particular claim for relief.</p>

<p>The judge’s ruling puts to an end a 4 1/2 year saga that generated headlines across the nation and set talk radio abuzz, with politicians, academicians and pundits locked in debates over patriotism, the limits of free speech on campus, and what constitutes academic misconduct.</p>

<p>. . . "</p>

2

<p>I like the outcome. I do not believe the taxpayers of Colorado would want to subsidize the salary of a jerk like Churchill. I would like to see him bankrupt and impoverished but unfortunately he will probably just start giving speeches on some commie speakers forum and make more money then he would have at CU.</p>

3

<p>While I don’t reach the level of wanting to see him bankrupt and impoverished, I too am happy with the outcome. I think he was a black eye for CU in many ways. Given his lack of credentials (at least in being hired by CU in the FIRST place!), he’s worn out his welcome. A mistake made that the university would like to forget about.</p>

<p>While I did not like or agree with his “Little Eichmanns” statement (I found it disgusting), I tried really hard to look at the academic dishonestly/plagiarism/research misconduct allegations to see if they were credible. While others will disagree, I thought they were sufficient grounds for dismissal on their own, and that his political speech didn’t play a role in the school’s ultimate decision.</p>

4

<p>We have every right to demand integrity from professors. And he has every right to spend the rest of his life making speaches. I’ll be watching and hoping D’s school doesnt pay for him.</p>

5

<p>No job, no money for Ward Churchill … and no sympathy. Add me to the list of citizens who never figured out how someone with such peculiar views (and poor judgement) could be chosen to help mould young minds.</p>