Posted on 02/12/2005 6:50:15 AM PST by fuquadukie
Response from University Colorado-Boulder to my email sent last week..
SUBJECT: Response Concerning Professor Churchill
FROM: Philip P. DiStefano, Interim Chancellor
SENDER: Pauline Hale, UCB Communications Executive Director
DATE: February 10, 2005
On behalf of the Board of Regents and President Hoffman, I want to thank you for taking the time to comment on Professor Ward Churchill. While the issue is difficult, we can only be served by having an open and honest dialog as we move forward together.
Let me state unequivocally that Professor Churchill's views are his own and do not represent the views of University of Colorado faculty, staff, students, administration or Regents.
As you may suspect, we have received comments from concerned local and national citizens expressing viewpoints that range from urging for his dismissal from the CU-Boulder faculty and other disciplinary measures to supporting his right to express his opinions.
At the Feb. 3 Board of Regents meeting, I announced a course of action that provides due process. Over the next few weeks, I will oversee a thorough examination of Professor Churchill's writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works. The purpose of this internal review is to determine whether Professor Churchill overstepped his bounds as a faculty member, showing cause for dismissal as outlined in the Laws of the Regents.
At the conclusion of this examination, I will determine whether to issue a notice of intent to dismiss for cause, other action as appropriate, or no action. If a notice to dismiss for cause or some other action is issued then the subsequent process will be governed by the Laws of the Regents.
Before such a decision can be made, the University must observe due process as required by the U.S. Constitution and the Laws of the Regents. The University is obligated to carefully balance the protections afforded by the First Amendment, as well as follow very specific University rules and processes for faculty discipline. Our processes will guide our actions in the most thoughtful and equitable manner.
I am hopeful that you will consider the actions already taken to deal with this matter that strikes so deeply at both our national conscience and the core tenets of any institution of higher education.
President Hoffman has stated, "The rights afforded those of us in the academic community to pursue our scholarly work come with a heavy responsibility to behave with integrity and professionalism and to meet the highest ethical standards our disciplines demand. These standards create the boundaries within which academic freedom rests."
I encourage you to visit the CU-Boulder News Center Web site at for additional information and updates on this situation.
Again, we thank you for your interest in the University of Colorado and for expressing your opinion.
Sincerely,
Philip P. DiStefano
Interim Chancellor
My daughter is a tenured professor and I would fire her in a heartbeat just for some of the nutty ideas she has. But that's just me. I should have taken her to the woodshed more often when she was little. Back then she seemed like a pretty reasonable sort. The university education twisted her mind and it got worse when she married a flaming liberal who is worse than she is. There's no hope of ever convincing either of them that they are brainwashed. They truly believe that they are more intelligent than the great "unwashed". Their elitism and arrogance makes me ill.
Only those students who agree with his venom say he's a good teacher. I have read, from FReepers posting here, that if his student disagrees with his trash, he gives them "F's" or silences them. There's no free speech in his classroom, unless they're parroting back his mantra of anti-Americanism.
I never said it had anything to do with free speech. And "due process" most definitely applies to "contractual issues". "Due process" says nothing whatsoever about "a hearing from the board"---it is all about following the written rules and laws as laid out in those rules and laws.
Churchill isn't a teacher...he conditions people. Did you ever see the movie "Brazil"?
As odious as this clowns remarks are, I must agree that his hate speech ramblings are his views and if the University wants to make a fool of itself by keeping him on staff as an example of the kind of education that one can expect there, it's their business.
However, if it turns out that the resume he used to win his post at the university turns out to have been "padded" or contained deliberate falsehoods as to his qualifications, then he should be fired.
Well, I agree that he should be allowed to speak. I wish he would have even more public forum to speak on. If he squeals loud enough, and the raging fires around him get hot enough, I have no doubt that soon, Dean, Kerry, Pelosi and Kennedy would speak in his defense. The Democratic Party would then jump into their grave with both feet.
I got the same response in the mass email.
Ward's freedom to write and walk around this country is paid in blood by members of our armed services. There simply has to be recognition of right and wrong. Ward Churchill is way out of bounds.
a tenured professor who's been there forever and know they finally will check his credentials
let him keep on talking, give him a gig on cnn, make him howard dean's assistant at the dnc
I see that the chicken S has a body guard which the taxpayers are footing the bill for also. Even if the bodyguard is using Churchhill's money.
I suspect that that "is" one of the grounds for termination of tenured faculty under the Bylaws of the university. Another is undoubtedly falsifying research/publications. It is highly probable that Churchill has done both. But making the determination for either of those two grounds must be done according to the "due process" laid out in those same university guidelines.
The Constitution says that a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. I fail to see where any of that applies here. Of course the University may have its own notion of "due process" as it applies to their hiring and firing practices, but that hardly comprises a Constitutional issue.
The First Amendment originally applied to the federal government. Later through Supreme Court activism it became applicable to state and local governments. Being that CU is a "public" institution, the tax dollar argument doesn't hold water. It is precisely because he earns tax payer dollars that he is protected under the First Amendment.
I think the smart tack is to fire him for academic fraud and/or incompetence.
True. It will be interesting to see how the University ACTS on the issue, and how their enrollment/foundations/donations fare in the future.
I'm still trying to find hardcopy of his 1991 resume, where he now claims Tribal Enrollment as a Cherokee, and changed his military service to be "Airborne, Recondo trained" - this resume' was dated from around the time he was tenured, so it's possible his tenure was based on fraud...
I agree. The more crap that comes out of his mouth, the more his university and academia as a whole will decline in the eyes of the American public. When he speaks, negative controversy erupts. Then we report it and keep it alive. In the end, an Eason Jordan-like resignation. And then we win.
I never said it was a Constitutional issue--just that "due process" had to be followed. Now, if the University fails to follow their own written rules/bylaws, it most definitely CAN become a legal issue in civil court. One could argue that that "is" a Constitutional issue at that point, and due to exactly the Constitutional reason you cited--deprivation of life, liberty or property.
What a pathetic resume. I can't imagine this imbecile would have been hired without the "Creek/Cherokee" claim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.