Revolution #166, May 31, 2009
Battle to Force the U. of Colorado to Reinstate Ward Churchill Continues
On April 2, a jury in Denver rendered its verdict in the case of Ward Churchill. The jury agreed with former University of Colorado (CU) professor Ward Churchill—and the many distinguished scholars in his field of Native American studies who testified on his behalf—that he was fired in July 2007, not for faulty scholarship but in retaliation for a controversial essay he wrote after 9/11. The essence of the case from the very beginning was the political persecution by a major university of a controversial professor, scholar, and activist—that's what the jury confirmed.
The jury also awarded Churchill $1 in damages. A juror who spoke to the press later explained that award: "David Lane (Churchill's attorney) kept saying this wasn't about the money, and in the end, we took his word for that."
The jury's verdict was a significant setback for forces hell-bent on suppressing and stifling dissent and critical thinking on campuses. (see "Debate Sharpens Over Ward Churchill Verdict," Revolution, 4/19/09). But the battle to defeat the political persecution of Ward Churchill is far from over.
There has been no move by the court to order the University to give Churchill back his job. On May 18 attorneys for Churchill filed a motion for an expedited/speedy hearing on the arguments. Within days attorneys for the University filed their own brief with the court, saying Churchill "deserves neither reinstatement nor money."
A letter signed by over 150 professors and attorneys from around the country was sent to Judge Larry Naves in April calling on him to order CU to reinstate Ward Churchill to his position of full professor. The letter argues that "Reinstatement is the usual, or 'preferred,' remedy in cases such as this. As federal courts of appeal have noted, When a person loses his job, it is at best disingenuous to say that money damages can suffice to make that person whole.... We also note that reinstatement is an effective deterrent in preventing employer retaliation against employees who exercise their constitutional rights."
And the letter cites a resolution by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) that "We believe the disputes over Ward Churchill's publications should have been allowed to work themselves out in traditional scholarly venues, not referred to disciplinary hearings. We believe Churchill should be reinstated to his faculty position at the University of Colorado." This resolution echoes the testimony at trial of several experts in the field of Native American studies, who praised Churchill's scholarship and were highly critical of the methods used and conclusions drawn by the committee that investigated the complaints brought by the University against Churchill's work.
University Ignores, Distorts Verdict
The University's response attempts to completely reverse the meaning of the jury's verdict. It ignores their principal finding—that Churchill's firing was illegal—and claims the $1 damage award represents a statement by the jury that Churchill suffered no damage as a result of his termination! The brief says, "the jury did not award Professor Churchill a single penny for reputational injury or emotional distress, which can only be read as the jurors' unanimous conclusion that Professor Churchill destroyed his own reputation through his academic misconduct." They also argue the court should not go against "the jury's implied finding that Professor Churchill suffered no actual damages."
This interpretation not only defies common sense, it was explicitly refuted by a juror in statements she made about their deliberations right after the verdict. She said only one juror resisted giving Churchill a damage award of over $100,000 for loss of his salary; and in the end, they relied on Churchill's lawyer who said, as Professor Churchill himself did, that this case wasn't about the money.
The brief also uses statements by David Lane, Churchill's attorney, to argue he should not be reinstated. Lane has warned recently that the University will face another lawsuit if it tries to punish Churchill by putting him in a basement office, or strips him of class time. CU's lawyers used Lane's comments to argue "Reinstatement under these circumstances places the university in the no-win position of either facing another lawsuit or effectively immunizing Professor Churchill from complying with the standards of professional scholarship."
From the moment the verdict was announced, representatives of CU have ignored the jury's conclusion that except for Churchill's "first Amendment-protected" essay, he would not have been fired. Expressing the same sentiments voiced by the politically powerful reactionary forces behind the whole witch hunt against Professor Churchill that began at the start of 2005, CU spokespeople have continued to claim that Churchill's alleged academic misconduct makes him unfit to teach. Hank Brown, the former CU President who fired Churchill, said that it would be a "travesty of justice" if Churchill got his job back. Brown is a right wing former U.S. Senator involved with ACTA1 , an organization in the forefront of the campaign targeting Churchill and his scholarship, in order to give legitimacy to their overall assault targeting critical thinking and dissent in academia. [For more on the trial and verdict, see Revolution #162]
Expedited Ruling Requested
Churchill's lawyers have asked the judge in their recent brief for a one-day hearing in June to determine on an "expedited basis" whether Churchill will get his job back at the Boulder campus. Their motion states they would like to know by Wednesday of this week when in June the hearing can be held. Churchill wants to return to teaching by the fall semester, which begins August 24.
As might be expected, the administration's position has plenty of supporters among the faculty and students on the campus, who do not want Churchill to come back. But there are many others who will welcome his return. As education professor Margaret LeCompte said in an April 10 New York Times piece, "He is a well-respected teacher, even by students who disagree with him—the kind of a person who should be at a university, where a dialogue of controversial ideas can be held in a safe environment." The jury's verdict in this case has been a setback to very powerful right wing forces in this country out to put an end to such "dialogue of controversial ideas"; and to the very existence of such a safe environment. It is these reactionary purposes, and not any supposed concern for preserving academic standards, that motivate CU's continued resistance to reinstating Professor Churchill. People within academia and beyond need to support this fight to reinstate Professor Churchill, as a part of the greater battle to defend the university as a place where the unfettered search for the truth, intellectual ferment and dissent is growing, and increasingly impacting society as a whole.
1. American Council of Trustees and Alumni [back]
If you like this article, subscribe, donate to and sustain Revolution newspaper.
