Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Robinson: CU probably will prevail if Churchill files lawsuit

Published June 15, 2006 at midnight

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

CU can legally fire Ward Churchill because:

A. He is unqualified and unethical.

B. He falsified and fabricated.

C. He plagiarized and misrepresented.

D. All of the above.

All of the above, but the university can't fire him because he has written hateful, unpatriotic things.

At stake are the principles of free speech and academic freedom pitted against the university's legitimate interest in ensuring integrity and competence in its faculty.

Therein lies the problem.

Churchill is hardly the ideal First Amendment poster boy: He is easy to despise, and his pomposity is exceeded only by his mediocrity.

His 9/11 "Roosting Chickens" essay calling some WTC victims "little Eichmanns" who were "military targets" was about as inane, inflammatory and insulting as they come.

In a predictable backlash response, once public attention was belatedly drawn to Churchill's essay, talk show hosts clamored for his head, joined by politicians who demanded that he resign or be fired.

Which helps pave the way for a future federal retaliatory termination lawsuit by Churchill, who has arrogantly declared publicly that if disciplined, he would end up "owning this university."

Good theory, except for the fact that in-depth scrutiny of his published writings proves that Ward Churchill is not just politically off the chart, he is not much of a scholar, either, and actually deserves to be fired for that.

But as the CU investigative committee noted last month, what is troubling is that Churchill's political views gave rise to the investigation.

Even though the probe began in one place, it ended up in entirely another. Churchill was attacked for his 9/11 remarks by high-ranking elected officials, then subjected to an incredibly expensive investigation into everything from his personal ethnicity to his scholarly accuracy.

The rules governing dismissal of a faculty member limit firings to individuals showing "demonstrable professional incompetence . . .or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity."

Churchill seems to fit the bill. The committee found academic misconduct, including outright fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

It is fully obvious that Churchill not only lacks the qualifications to teach at the university level, but is intellectually dishonest as well, playing fast and loose with established facts and the works of others in order to advance his own far-fetched political agenda. There is more of the hysterical than the historical in what he has to say about 9/11 and past events involving Native Americans and the federal government.

Churchill's attorney likens his client to Galileo. More apt comparisons are to erstwhile journalist Jayson Blair or disgraced young novelist Kaavya Viswanathan . . .except for the fact that those two plagiarists owned up to what they did.

Not so Ward Churchill.

Will the committee findings be enough to insulate CU from legal liability for what could be viewed as a personnel disciplinary action undertaken in retaliation for Churchill's controversial public statements?

Probably so, even despite the ongoing demands for his dismissal by politicians, who appear heedless to the fact that they are providing valuable ammunition for Churchill to use in his upcoming legal battle.

Far more certain is this: After months of investigations, the costs of ridding the university of Ward Churchill are only going up.

Scott Robinson is a Denver trial lawyer specializing in personal injury and criminal defense.