ACLU Files Brief for Ward Churchill in Appeal Over Reinstatement

Fired C.U. professor Ward Churchill is appealing the trial court's decision (available here)not to order his reinstatement after a jury ruled in his favor that he was terminated in retaliation for unpopular remarks about 9/11. The judge vacated the jury verdict, finding university officials had absolute immunity because they were acting as quasi-judicial officers in firing him. The jury had awarded Churchill $1.00 in damages,

The ACLU, American Association of University Professors and National Coalition Against Censorship today filed an amicus brief on behalf of Churchill. The brief argues the trial court was wrong to grant CU Regents absolute immunity, and given that there was a proven First Amendment violation, the presumed equitable remedy is reinstatement.

The brief is here. Background is here and here.

< Marijuana Grower Raided by DEA Gets Bond | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If this were really a First Amendment issue (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Honyocker on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:31:42 PM EST
    rather than a clear-cut case of academic fraud, then the ACLU might have something here, but as it is, what a waste of time and resources.  Glad I don't give money to the ACLU anymore. I dug it when they were about protecting and defending the Bill of Rights (except of course, for the Second Amendment, on which which the ACLU has always been deafeningly silent) rather than just another advocacy arm of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party...shame that.

    This is absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by kenosharick on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:49:39 PM EST
    a first amendment issue and I aplaud the ACLU. As both a student and instructor I find the damper that those on the right are trying to place on academic freedom frightening and disgusting.

    Academic fraud is not equal to academic freedom (none / 0) (#14)
    by Buckeye on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    Not only is the ACLU correct in this case (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:11:25 AM EST
    but your knock on the ACLU, Hon, is totally incorrect.  Assuming for purposes of discussion that the Democratic Party actually does have a "progressive wing," the ACLU is not part of it.  The ACLU (which I proudly serve as a member of the Board of its Pennsylvania affiliate) is relentless non-partisan.  We support free speech, due process (and religious freedom) rights impartially, across the political and artistic spectrum, opposing all content-based distinctions and restrictions.  The ACLU opposes every administration's attacks on civil liberties, as it has from its founding 90 years ago, right down to the present. Just look at the website for numerous illustrations.  (And the ACLU is not "silent" on the Second Amendment.  Although there is a fair amount of internal disagreement on this, the official position is that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to possess weapons but rather ensures that each states can maintain a "well-regulated militia" that the federal government cannot ban.)

    Actually, my knock on the ACLU is correct, (none / 0) (#84)
    by Honyocker on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:16:33 PM EST
    and, by the way, offered not as an attack on what was once a fine organization, but rather as an objective observation of the ACLU's obvious move in recent years from defender of the bill of rights to an advocacy organization for an expanded public sector at any cost, whether financial, in the form of higher taxes and spending, or constitutional in the form of lost liberties, or both.  The fact is, these things happen.  Organizations change over the years.  As an example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving started as a group that advocated only for tougher DUI laws.  Today, MADD is just another lobbying outfit with a broad prohibitionist agenda, of which DUI laws are just one part.  Call it mission creep, or losing sight of what you once believed in, or just plain selling out.  But I do understand that the bunker mentality (or group think) that often develops in an organizational structure might make it all too easy to fool yourself into believing the ACLU is still "non-partisan" or "impartial," but maybe that just means it is time to step outside of the internal echo chamber and take a hard and honest look at things.  And I must say, to pretend to be unaware that there exists a progressive wing of the Democratic party is pretty disingenuous for someone who claims to be on the board of an ACLU affiliate.  Which party then does the progressive left in America align itself with?  The Republicans?  Never heard of Organizing For America, or Progress Now, or Media Matters, or CODA? Here in Colorado, these organizations exist (or in some cases, existed) for the purpose of electing Democrats, preferably, but not always, as hard left Democrats as possible. And it worked, for now. And the Colorado chapter of the ACLU has been a loyal supporter of the cause, even when it has meant selling itself out.  Do you really think if a radically conservative professor at CU Boulder had been caught re-handed in plagiarism and academic fraud that the ACLU would have mounted a faux First Amendment case on his behalf?  Please.      

    Utter b/s (none / 0) (#85)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 04:22:19 PM EST
    You do not cite, and could not cite, a single example of the ACLU supporting "an expanded public sector at any cost, whether financial, in the form of higher taxes and spending, or constitutional in the form of lost liberties, or both."  

    On the completely unrelated subject of the so-called "hard left" or "progressive wing of the Democratic Party," you failed to appreciate the ironic tone of my comment.  What I thought I had expressed, but obviously not clearly enough for some people, was that rank and file Democrats are a heck of a lot more "progressive" in the policies they support than anyone with power inside the Party, and that while there are organizations, such as the ones you mention and others, attempting to pressure the Democratic Party to restore progressive values to its agenda, those folks lack sufficient power within the party structure at this time even to be referred to as a "wing" of it.  (And those who support progressive values within our political system have almost nothing in common with the minuscule "hard left" that (barely) exists in America.)


    Yea, all those campus speech codes, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Honyocker on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:06:31 PM EST
    so obviously a plot of the vast right wing university administration conspiracy...frightening.  Glad the left would never do anything like police speech on campus.

    What Colleges are you talking about (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 10:10:49 PM EST
    I went to one of the most liberal (def- open minded, supportive or minority rights, open to different world perspectives) in the country- Oberlin College, and not once did I hear about any language code.  


    On a side note.  Ward Connerly came and spoke at our school.  And while I think he was attacked in ways that were not okay, I felt that  he was intellectually dishonest.  


    Churchill has the right to say (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:15:02 AM EST
    what he wants. His employer, just as MacDonald's can fire an employee who bad mouths Big Mac, should have the right to fire him.

    And yes, I understand tenure and maintain that it is an idea that was become bad over time.

    Plus Churchill had other problems besides his ...Little Eichmanns....in the WTC towers

    CU began investigating Churchill after an essay surfaced in which he had called some victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks "little Eichmanns."

    The statement triggered outrage and led to calls for his dismissal.

    Subsequently, the university launched an investigation of his scholarly writing and found that he engaged in repeated acts of plagiarism over a period of years.


    BTW - If you want to discuss speech codes bring the subject up in an Open thread and I will be happy to provide some information.

    In the meantime I recommend Google.


    Churchill's employer is a state agency, (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:31:08 AM EST
    the University of Colorado, Jim, not a private corporation, like McDonald's.  Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, that makes all the difference.

    What about the plagarism? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:33:19 AM EST
    That is not covered by either the First or Fourteenth Amendment.

    Don't change the subject (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    Your comment was about the content of the McDonald's employee's speech, and I pointed out the constitutional difference, and thus the fallacy in your analogy.  Neither your comment nor my clarification had anything to do with plagiarism.  As for that point, however, in the Churchill case there was a jury trial.  The jury heard all the evidence from both sides.  The jury concluded that Churchill was not actually fired for academic plagiarism but rather because of disagreement with the substance of his political comments.  That's what the ACLU says violates the First Amendment.  If the jury concluded that the University had been truthful in stating their reason for firing Churchill, there would be no civil liberties issue.

    It wasn't my comment - please re-read (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:44:45 AM EST
    But he's still toxic - what university would want him on staff?  I certainly wouldn't hire him.

    Oh, sorry (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    I confused "jimaka.." with "jbindc."  My mistake.  I did answer you about the "plagiarism," though.  I jury heard all the facts and determined that the plagiarism claim was just a pretext for the violation of free speech rights.  I do have qualms about the tenure system in many instances, but the Churchill case actually illustrates that its rationale is still viable and perhaps essential to the maintenance of academic freedom.

    See my comment #12 (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:05:21 AM EST
    I understand. (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:04:00 AM EST
    That is why I wrote:

    should have the right to fire him.

    So are you (none / 0) (#10)
    by JamesTX on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:41:14 AM EST
    saying we are duty bound to avoid criticism of all violence victims, regardless of what they do in their lives outside of their victim status? Or are you just saying we should restrict our speech to expression of strong nationalist sentiments whenever there is a large scale attack? Or is it that you simply disagree with his speech being protected by tenure, regardless of what he says? I'm not saying you are wrong. I am just trying to understand what specifically causes so many people to automatically see Churchill's treatment as justified. This is relevant, because if the same standards for charging plagiarism which were used against Churchill were applied to all tenured academics, there would be a lot of empty offices and labs. Plagiarism is the Catch-22 in academics.

    I look at his WTC (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    comments as providing an alibi for the actions of the terrorists. In short it becomes a means to bring equivalence to their actions and the actions of the US.

    Churchill's comments struck millions as so outrageous as to bring disfavor to the University. Plus, the University is paid for by the citizens in a variety of ways. Thus I see him as an employee and felt then, and now, that he should be fired.

    And yes, I understand Peter G's comment and do not challenge it from a legal view. I just think the law is wrong. I also think tenure is a tradition that has become wrong over time.

    And if applying the same standards result in what you claim, then so be it.

    The only person I feel some sympathy for is Churchill's lawyer who, if I understand correctly, won't be paid. That's a shame because we do need lawyers who will do what he did.


    It's clearly a brave new world (none / 0) (#17)
    by Rojas on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    in which we cower at the thought of freedom of speech.

    Nope (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    I have no problem with Churchill speaking his mind.

    I just also believe that the citizens, through their University, have the right to fire him for his insult to them.

    I also think the investigation provided a fine secondary reason to fire him.

    And yes, I understand that the law says otherwise.

    Doesn't bother me. I remember lots of Jim Crow laws that were wrong. They (finally) got fixed.


    It's not just the law (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    It's the First Amendment....And, you can't fire people for exercising a constitutional right....

    You sure can get fired (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:02:36 PM EST
    There's many restrictions on the First Amendment - the classic "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" comes to mind.

    People are fired for things they say all the time.  Even government employees are restricted, under the Hatch Act, for example, from saying certain things at work.


    Not in California (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    It is called a Tameny claim--getting fired for exercising a constitutional right....

    Whistleblowers have protection too....

    And a wrongful termination claim based on Tameny claim is one of the few wrongful termination claims that carry punitive damages in California.  Here is a blurb from a California treatise:

    Political activity: Lab.C. §§ 1101 and 1102 's protection for an employee's political activity, particularly political speech, "inures to the public at large rather than simply to the individual or proprietary interests of the employee or employer." [Ali v. L.A. Focus Publication (2003) 112 CA4th 1477, 1487-1488, 5 CR3d 791, 798-799--newspaper editor who was fired for publicly criticizing public official outside workplace had valid Tameny claim]

    That's not absolute (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    Employees can and do get fired for insubordination, giving away business secrets, and many other things that involve their First Amendment rights all the time.

    And according to the case you cited

    ...newspaper editor who was fired for publicly criticizing public official outside workplace had valid Tameny claim

    If the editor had used his First Amendment right to publicly criticize his employers, or give away business secrets, etc., he still could have been fired.

    The First Amendment has never been absolute, so your claim that someone can't be fired for exercising that right is not entirely true.


    Of course (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    But the context here is a political statement by a University professor that was very unpopular--not giving away trade secrets or advocating immediate violence (your fire in the theater scenario)

    That (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:38:11 PM EST

    In 2005, University of Colorado at Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct.[32]

    On May 16, 2006 the University released the findings of its Investigative Committee, which agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct", including falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. The committee was divided on the appropriate level of sanctions.[2] The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee that Churchill had "committed serious, repeated, and deliberate research misconduct", but also disagreed on what sanctions should be imposed.[49] Churchill's appeal against his proposed dismissal was considered by a panel of the University's Privilege and Tenure Committee, which found that two of the seven findings of misconduct did not constitute dismissible offences. Three members recommended that the penalty should be demotion and one year's suspension without pay, while two favored dismissal.[3][50]

    On July 24, 2007, the University regents voted seven to two to uphold all seven of the findings of research misconduct, overruling the recommendation of Privilege and Tenure panel that two of them be dismissed. They then fired Churchill by a vote of eight to one

    Now, while the jury may not have believed it, the firing obviously took place before the trial, so that's what it was based on.  His statements may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but what keeps getting lost in this debate is the fact that it just wasn't one isolated incident.

    And the fact that the jury took his attorney's word that it wasn't about the money speaks to how really harmed they thought he was.


    The jury findings control here (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    Everyone knew that the University was desperately searching for an excuse to fire him....And that is what the jury found....

    So, Churchill, as found by the jury, was fired for making a politically unpopular comment....

    And, yes, the jury only awarded him $1--but that would still entitle his attorney to his fees under federal law--and that could be well over 100k....


    But as you said (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    The judge vacated the verdict.

    And my point was, people ranting around here because the University fired him for this isolated incident are not looking at the whole picture.  (And IMO - the University was right - too miuch evidence that he was plagarizing and misrepresenting others' work -
    I could care less about his 9/11 statements except to say he's a jerk).


    Well, the judge's ruling (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    was not based on the evidence of plagiarism but on his assessment that the Univeristy had complete immunity.....a legal issue subject to de novo review on appeal....

    And, the ACLU brief, admittedly only one side of the argument, makes pretty short shrift of the immunity argument.....

    The issue cuts both ways....UC Berkeley won't be able to fire Yoo, either....


    The investigation into allegations (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    took place how long after the misconduct itself took place -- and how long after the national get-Churchill project went into full swing?

    We wouldn't want anyone to be offended (none / 0) (#38)
    by Rojas on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    by an opinion contrary to the conventional wisdom or corporate framing.....

    If you win a Federal civil rights case (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:11:59 PM EST
    you get fees...

    Churchill won the case, even though the damages were just $1 (I think.)  So, attorneys fees should be recoverable....


    Ah, the Judge vacated (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:14:44 PM EST
    the verdict....

    The immunity issue is am important one--I hope that immunity is not upheld....


    This looks like it is up to the judge. (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:16:22 PM EST
    State law leaves it to the trial judge to decide on reinstatement and monetary damages, called "front money."



    Attorneys fees are different than damages (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    In reading the ACLU brief, Churchill's lawyer brought a Federal Civil Rights case under section 1983 in state court....I'm not sure why he filed in state court.....

    Relief for a violation of a federal civil rights statute is governed by federal, not state, law--and indeed the ACLU's brief cites exclusively federal law....

    A prevailing plaintiff under a section 1983 claim is entitled to attornyes fees.  Here the judge issued in effect a jnov, overturning the jury verdict...and such rulings are supposed to be reviewed de novo, or without giving any deference to the trial court's ruling....Churchill's lawyer says that the appeal has an unhill climb (which may be practically true in state court in this case) but using the correct legal standard, Chruchill should start out with the score tied at 0-0 on appeal.  And, it would seem that the trial court did get the issue of immunity wrong....The ACLU makes a good argument that the University panel that fired Churchill is not a judicial body--it is an adminstrative one that is hardly nuetral.


    State court (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    Looks like an 11th Amendment issue....

    Little Eichmans (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    one way to ensure a steady supply of them is to embrace and promulgate an imperialist, "defense"-economy-dependent state with it's constant danger of "making equivalences" which give aid and comfort to the enemy.

    The war pigs and their little errand boys and girls have been on the hunt for those who might "weaken our resolve" since the WWI era passage of the Espionage Act.

    Other casulaties of the endless enemies scenario such as the advancement of science through the limitations placed on the trading of information, we'll save for another discussion..


    What if shouting "fire" causes... (none / 0) (#87)
    by lambert on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:40:34 PM EST
    a winger's head to explode?

    What about that, Mr. Smartypants Communist?


    Ward Connerly, Sam? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    Or Ward Churchill? Big difference.  Not sure if that's a typo in your "p.s." or you were making some different point.

    It was a typo thanks. (none / 0) (#49)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:49:19 PM EST
    "Speech codes" (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    "Tenured radicals" (you know, the ones behind the global warming hoax) etc give the famous paranoid style of those whose precious bodily fluids are in constant danger, something to focus on..

    That is, when they need to take a break from worrying about the U.N and world government, forners
    and terr-ists..


    Uh, you are confusing the issue (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    of speech codes for the students, of which the Left has been the prime mover, vs an employer's right to fire an employee for bringing shame on his employer.

    Two separate issues.


    Ah (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    It sounds like you want to enforce you're own speech code. One in which planet wingnuttia writes the rules for scholars and teachers..

    Nope (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    But teachers, who may or may not be scholars, should have to answer to the people who employ them.

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:25:51 PM EST
    you're all about defending the rights of the people to have their voice heard..

    I was worried for a minute that you were one of those who thinks that "we" cant afford to have voices of dissent in a time of war..like those nuts still smarting about how we were "stabbed in the back" during Vietnam..


    And I am also all about people (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:15:57 PM EST
    being responsible for what they say.

    Not at all (none / 0) (#68)
    by Rojas on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    In fact what you are about is corporate control over what is said. Corporations who's very reason for existence is to avoid accountability. Your's is a nonsensical argument.
    Tenure is a firewall as are the wistleblower statutes, pathetic as they are. These firewalls need to be shored up not undermined.

    The University of CO (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 04:21:12 PM EST
    is not a corporation. It is owned and ran by the people of the state of CO through their representatives and the Board of Regents.

    Why should any employee not be responsible to those who are paying their salary?

    Whistleblower laws are not the same as tenure. Whistleblower laws protect the individual from being harmed because they have reported a crime.

    Tenure protects the individual from being fired for doing something their employer thinks is wrong.

    Corporations have a very broad right to fire people for their speech and actions because they are not the government. Nothing new their.


    One of the issues (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:28:12 PM EST
    that really gets under the skin of conservatives is teachers' failure to inculcate conservative values....Conservatives have lost the youth and blame teachers....and want to muzzle them....Academic freedom really harms this effort to properly endoctrinate the youth...This is why the Texas textbooks praise Gingrich and Joe McCarthy.....

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#48)
    by Rojas on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    The so called "conservatives" do not have a monopoly on intolerance. The objects of derision shift with any challenge to the status quo.

    With respect to public education (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    I don't think teachers feel under assault from progressives....

    Why should they? (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:17:09 PM EST
    They're not!

    Tell that to your (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    Intelligent Design pals.

    Really? (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 04:22:26 PM EST
    You think people who believe in Intelligent Design are progressives?

    Wow. Who knew?


    I think the people (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 04:30:46 PM EST
    who believe in it undermine their own arguments every time they open their mouths.

    Today? Certainly not (none / 0) (#64)
    by Rojas on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    Of course we'd have to define the terms, but I'd liken the so called progressives to a chihuahua humping a shoe. Except for a few crumbs around the edges of criminal justice issues they have no influence and are without a voice or platform to wield political power.

    What's wrong with Chihuahuas? (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    They can be quite fierce, you know.

    Yes, very fierce.. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Rojas on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    Please wake me when it's over. I think I'd enjoy a cigarette.

    It depends (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    Under California law, if an employee engages in political activity outside of his employment, an employer cannot fire him or her if the employer is embarassed or ashamed of the employee's political statements.....

    Which schools have (none / 0) (#51)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:53:17 PM EST
    Speech codes?  Can you give me a link to a major university or college with a speech code?  

    Try this (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    Google "speech codes colleges" and you will get a bout 2,000,000 hits including this article.


    Speech codes come from people wanting to outlaw hate speech. Strange bedfellows for people who almost uniformly say teachers should allowed to teach what they want.


    How about you (none / 0) (#65)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    Stop linking to some conservative action group and provide some evidence for your BS.  I have NEVER heard of any code at any top school in this country (or bottom school for that matter).  I know it is a nice Boogy man, but if you are going to claim it give me the info.  

    How about you picking out (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    another one from the 2,000,000 hits from Google?

    And you have never heard of the University of Michigan? University of Wisconsin? Western Michigan University?

    Wow. And here I thought I was getting a little isolated.


    Intellecually dishonest (none / 0) (#67)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    There is nothing in that link that provides any evidence to show that there is any effort to stop freedom of speech on college campuses across the country.  

    Give me a name of a college that has a code that is being used to stop the freedom of speech.  Your evidence and your arguements are very intellectually dishonest.  


    See my comment #74 (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    Or were those lawsuits filed for no reason.



    Please (none / 0) (#79)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 05:55:14 PM EST
    Are you kidding me.  Have you even read the site yu say has all this info.  There have been 3 or 4 cases which some how you are reading as some sort of liberal plot?  

    This seems to be a a pattern of yours.  You make claims and then one someone asks you to define your terms, show me some evidence, you point in some general direction and say there is the evidence go to google.  


    Plot? I never wrote that it was a plot, (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 07:00:02 PM EST
    Why don't you use Google? I entered "college speech code number cases" and got 269,000 hits and immediately found the infamous Penn State "water buffalo" case.... Citrus College (2003)... So that's about 7 without breaking a sweat.

    So, evidence? I think I proven my point.

    You, on the other hand, want to just deny and yell "Prove it!"



    Your water buffulo case is proof of what? (none / 0) (#82)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 08:15:24 PM EST
    That University of PA violated there own rules that all speech is free on campus.  Good job.  I guess they all these universties are suppressing speech and conservative thought everyday.  All day long.  

    All those law suits (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 09:07:58 PM EST
    were filed for no reason?



    The First Amendment Center (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 04:02:53 PM EST
    the same people horrified by the prospect of the threat posed by the Fairness Doctrine to the right of media monopolies to dominate the airwaves with one point of view.



    Bringing shame on his employer?!?!? (none / 0) (#88)
    by lambert on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:42:23 PM EST
    That's just bizarre.

    Who decides? The employer?


    It's about free speech... (none / 0) (#27)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:57:43 PM EST
    ...and academic freedom. Disliking what Churchill said does not give anyone the right to silence him. Too many people are basing their discomfort with what Churchill said as a pretext for pretending that a flagrant First Amendment violation is just dandy...ohhhh, it was an "insult!" not to mention an "alibi" for terrurists!! I'M SKEERED! Let me give up more civil rights so I feel safe!!

    Please. What on earth have we come to? If you think it's OK to do it to Churchill, what about Norman Finkelstein? His story is quite instructive--and chilling. Dare to speak ill of Israel and you have the whole academic apparatus come down on your head, including that other known plagiarist Alan Dershowitz, despite decades as a highly respected scholar with not a single blush of misconduct to his name. But somebody got "insulted" by what he wrote.

    One more time (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    and laying aside the legal argument which we know favors Churchill re free speech.. he was fired for plagiarism after his infamous quotes....

    It is disingenuous of you to claim that people are frightened because they are angered by what someone said. In fact, the comments actually emboldened people to step forward. So please spare me that illogical claim.

    And yes, I regard the searching for "why they hate us" as an unknowing (perhaps) excuse for the terrorist do. We know why they hate us. They are radical Muslims and they see us as one of the few barriers to their attempt to install theocratic governments.

    Again. Churchill has the right to say what he wants and his employer, who in my view is no different than McDonald's, has the right to fire him.

    Churchill can then take his work history and industry standing down the road and seek employment with another firm. Happens all the time in the world the rest of us live in.


    No, the jury found the plagiarism charge (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    was pretext for his termination....The jury found he was fired for his comments about little Eichmanns.....Everyone knew that--the University was looking for an excuse to fire him.  

    And, as I point out above, you cannot fire someone in California if they make outside of their employment political comments....If you do, you are subject to punitive damages....

    If the employee bad mouths his or her employer, or makes comments while at work, it would be a different situation....

    As to why certain Muslims hate us, I would not project and would instead actually find out from them.  That is just part of good intelligence work...


    CU claimed (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    otherwise. The jury disagreed with them but that doesn't change the fact that CU used plagiarism as the reason.

    And it was well proven.


    And the jury found CU was wrong (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    Well proven in the court of public opinion perhaps, but not in the court that counts....

    That CU could not win outright on its plagiarism defense is surprising--the comments were so offensive that one would think that an average jury would find any excuse to go against Churchill.  That it did not do so probably means the plagiarism charges were actually quite flimsy when examined in the harsh setting of a courtroom where the rules of evidence apply, or were obviously just mere pretext for firing Churchill....

    Kinda makes me have more confidence in juries--that they could set aside their own personal reactions.....


    Why? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    The subject has been debated for almost 9 years...

    But we're getting off topic. Bring it back up on an open thread.


    "One of the few barriers" lol (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    ..along with the armed-to-the-teeth Russia, China..much of Western and Eastern Europe..

    Actually it was an orchestrated (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:03:57 PM EST
    media campaign centering around the comments, a couple of years after the comments were actually made, that "emboldened people to step forward".

    First, the ministry of information at Fox and talk radio (those bastions of free inquiry), had to tell folks about it..


    Yes, the MSM (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    is just so solidly conservative.



    Keep telling yourself (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    or parroting the line - that Fox and thousands of radio outlets have nothing to do with "the MSM".

    Ah yes, the evil (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    Talk Radio.



    More stupid than evil (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 04:40:53 PM EST
    really..Now tell me FNC isnt "the MSM".

    I know, cuz we say so..And we aint evil-doers, we're good-doers.


    What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh... (none / 0) (#91)
    by lambert on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:48:16 PM EST
    and the Hindenberg?

    * * *

    One's a flaming gasbag, and the other's a Nazi dirigible!

    [Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal!]

    * * *

    Not that the other legacy party is all that much better, because they aren't better, just different.


    Yep (none / 0) (#90)
    by lambert on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:45:34 PM EST
    Ever looked at who's on Fred Hiatt's editorial page?

    I do understand there is a percentage.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by lambert on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:44:24 PM EST
    ... of the population that thinks universities are just like MacDonald's.

    Of course, this segment of the population also wins when people are kept ignorant, lack critical thinking skills, and so forth. So it's in their interest to think that way.


    As for tenure (none / 0) (#30)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    I don't know enough about it, plus or minus, but from what I understand,  a lot of people who teach at universities say they're getting shafted by not having tenure and having to be content with low-paying, low-security positions as "associate professors" and such. I know there's a very specific hierarchy and meaning for college professor titles and I'm sure I'm getting it all wrong but this appears to be a trend, getting rid of tenured positions to make it cheaper for the universities to hire people.

    Hey, if he wins... (none / 0) (#32)
    by diogenes on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    1.  The state of Colorado will be paying a useless plagiarist of a professor for twenty years.
    2. I'm sure it will play real well in Peoria since the Democratic party is the one associated with the ACLU.

    Peoria (none / 0) (#70)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 03:04:02 PM EST
    was the members of the jury who found in Churchill's favor.


    peoria gave him one dollar (none / 0) (#86)
    by diogenes on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:19:30 PM EST
    Peoria did not want to completely ignore the literal law but thought so little of the man that they gave him one dollar.  Juries that sympathesize with defendants actually award real damages, whether or not the judge ignores the jury ruling.