ah z10 you dick.
DENVER â Three months after a jury ruled that Ward L. Churchill, a former University of Colorado professor, was wrongfully terminated for his political views, a judge on Tuesday refused to give him his job back.
David Zalubowski/Associated Press
Ward L. Churchill at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colo., in April.
Related
Times Topics: Ward L. ChurchillThe judge, Larry J. Naves of Denver District Court, ruled that the universityâs regents were immune to liability in this case because they were acting as judicial officers when they voted to dismiss Mr. Churchill after a faculty committee concluded that he had committed academic fraud.
Mr. Churchill, an ethnic studies professor, caused a national uproar when he referred in an essay to some victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as âlittle Eichmanns,â and he was terminated in 2007. He filed a wrongful-termination suit earlier this year, and after a monthlong trial, a jury found that his political views played a substantial role in his dismissal. But the jury awarded Mr. Churchill only $1 in damages.
In a 42-page ruling, Judge Naves said reinstatement was not appropriate, given the juryâs decision to award Mr. Churchill only $1.
âIf I am required to enter a remedy that is âconsistent with the juryâs findings,â I cannot order remedy that âdisregards the juryâs implicit findingâ that Professor Churchill has suffered no actual damages that an award of reinstatement would prospectively remedy,â Judge Naves wrote.
The ruling is a clear victory for the university.
âAt the moment, we feel very satisfied,â said Bronson Hilliard, a university spokesman. âThere was an important principle at stake here, and that is academic integrity, which is at the heart of everything we do in research and teaching. We feel very gratified at the outcome.â
âWe have academic processes in place at the University of Colorado that are time honored and very thorough and very precise,â Mr. Hilliard added. âAnd we followed those procedures to the letter. Professor Churchill was given full due process.â
David Lane, Mr. Churchillâs lawyer, was not immediately available for comment, but it is likely he will appeal the ruling.
The decision on Tuesday is at least a temporary conclusion to a tumultuous legal case that has lasted nearly five years.
When Mr. Churchillâs controversial essay first appeared in 2001, it attracted little notice. He wrote that some workers in the World Trade Center âformed a technocratic corps at the very heart of Americaâs global financial empire,â and described them as âlittle Eichmanns,â referring to Adolf Eichmann, who has been called the architect of the Holocaust.
By 2005, however, it had spread over multiple Web sites, provoking outrage. Shortly after, scholars came forward, accusing Mr. Churchill of plagiarism in his research on American Indians.
In May 2006, a faculty committee at the university said it had found serious problems with Mr. Churchillâs scholarship. A year later, the regents dismissed him and Mr. Churchill filed his lawsuit.
After the juryâs verdict, Mr. Churchillâs lawyers asked Judge Naves to order reinstatement, and at a hearing last week, they argued that returning him to his job would be logical, based on the juryâs findings. Patrick OâRourke, a lawyer for the university, countered that Mr. Churchillâs return would harm the institution.
Faculty members and administrators testified for both sides.
Emma Perez, chairwoman of the ethnic studies department, testified at the hearing that she would welcome Mr. Churchill with open arms.
âStudents are lining up to take classes with Ward,â Ms. Perez said. âThey are constantly asking us: âWill Ward be back? Will we get to work with him?â â
Todd Gleeson, dean of the college of arts and sciences at the university, testified against reinstatement, saying that having Mr. Churchill back on campus would tarnish the universityâs reputation, given the faculty committeeâs conclusions of research misconduct.
âIt makes it very difficult for the university to uphold the standards of integrity and research standards,â Mr. Gleeson said.
Mr. Churchill himself testified that he was not interested in money, and that preserving academic freedom was the true impetus for his lawsuit.
âIt is your obligation to state the truth as you know it,â he said, âand you must be able to do it without fear of such intervention and reta
DENVER â Three months after a jury ruled that Ward L. Churchill, a former University of Colorado professor, was wrongfully terminated for his political views, a judge on Tuesday refused to give him his job back.
David Zalubowski/Associated Press
Ward L. Churchill at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colo., in April.
Related
Times Topics: Ward L. ChurchillThe judge, Larry J. Naves of Denver District Court, ruled that the universityâs regents were immune to liability in this case because they were acting as judicial officers when they voted to dismiss Mr. Churchill after a faculty committee concluded that he had committed academic fraud.
Mr. Churchill, an ethnic studies professor, caused a national uproar when he referred in an essay to some victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as âlittle Eichmanns,â and he was terminated in 2007. He filed a wrongful-termination suit earlier this year, and after a monthlong trial, a jury found that his political views played a substantial role in his dismissal. But the jury awarded Mr. Churchill only $1 in damages.
In a 42-page ruling, Judge Naves said reinstatement was not appropriate, given the juryâs decision to award Mr. Churchill only $1.
âIf I am required to enter a remedy that is âconsistent with the juryâs findings,â I cannot order remedy that âdisregards the juryâs implicit findingâ that Professor Churchill has suffered no actual damages that an award of reinstatement would prospectively remedy,â Judge Naves wrote.
The ruling is a clear victory for the university.
âAt the moment, we feel very satisfied,â said Bronson Hilliard, a university spokesman. âThere was an important principle at stake here, and that is academic integrity, which is at the heart of everything we do in research and teaching. We feel very gratified at the outcome.â
âWe have academic processes in place at the University of Colorado that are time honored and very thorough and very precise,â Mr. Hilliard added. âAnd we followed those procedures to the letter. Professor Churchill was given full due process.â
David Lane, Mr. Churchillâs lawyer, was not immediately available for comment, but it is likely he will appeal the ruling.
The decision on Tuesday is at least a temporary conclusion to a tumultuous legal case that has lasted nearly five years.
When Mr. Churchillâs controversial essay first appeared in 2001, it attracted little notice. He wrote that some workers in the World Trade Center âformed a technocratic corps at the very heart of Americaâs global financial empire,â and described them as âlittle Eichmanns,â referring to Adolf Eichmann, who has been called the architect of the Holocaust.
By 2005, however, it had spread over multiple Web sites, provoking outrage. Shortly after, scholars came forward, accusing Mr. Churchill of plagiarism in his research on American Indians.
In May 2006, a faculty committee at the university said it had found serious problems with Mr. Churchillâs scholarship. A year later, the regents dismissed him and Mr. Churchill filed his lawsuit.
After the juryâs verdict, Mr. Churchillâs lawyers asked Judge Naves to order reinstatement, and at a hearing last week, they argued that returning him to his job would be logical, based on the juryâs findings. Patrick OâRourke, a lawyer for the university, countered that Mr. Churchillâs return would harm the institution.
Faculty members and administrators testified for both sides.
Emma Perez, chairwoman of the ethnic studies department, testified at the hearing that she would welcome Mr. Churchill with open arms.
âStudents are lining up to take classes with Ward,â Ms. Perez said. âThey are constantly asking us: âWill Ward be back? Will we get to work with him?â â
Todd Gleeson, dean of the college of arts and sciences at the university, testified against reinstatement, saying that having Mr. Churchill back on campus would tarnish the universityâs reputation, given the faculty committeeâs conclusions of research misconduct.
âIt makes it very difficult for the university to uphold the standards of integrity and research standards,â Mr. Gleeson said.
Mr. Churchill himself testified that he was not interested in money, and that preserving academic freedom was the true impetus for his lawsuit.
âIt is your obligation to state the truth as you know it,â he said, âand you must be able to do it without fear of such intervention and reta