Posted on 03/12/2005 10:12:06 AM PST by freespirited
Settlement negotiations between the University of Colorado and professor Ward Churchill stalled Friday because of renewed opposition by groups that want to see him fired even if it takes a court fight to make him go away.
"The ball is in CU's court," said Churchill attorney David Lane, who confirmed negotiations have hit a wall.
Late Thursday, a settlement was all but done after lawyers for Churchill and the university agreed on financial terms. But when revelations arose Friday about a plagiarism complaint against Churchill, regents balked.
Churchill critics, including former state Senate President John Andrews, and private citizens across Colorado contacted some elected regents or went public Friday to express their displeasure with any negotiated settlement with the professor who demonized some 9/11 victims as Nazis.
Andrews, who runs the Colorado office of the Claremont Institute think tank, published a report claiming Churchill had committed plagiarism and academic fraud, and said he might work separate from the institute to recall from office any regents who agree to pay Churchill to leave his job.
"If any Republican regent would vote to either pay off Churchill or keep him on the faculty, I've got a radio audience and e-mails from 10,000 folks around the state who would do anything to see that regent recalled," Andrews said. "There would be a firestorm of reaction if they pay Churchill and reward him financially for his bad behavior."
Publishing dispute
On Tuesday, a Canadian university provided CU with an attorney's opinion on a 13-year- old publishing dispute involving Churchill. That attorney determined Churchill had published the work of one of the school's professors without adequate citation.
Dalhousie University of Nova Scotia spokesman Charles Crosby said CU officials contacted the school about whether Churchill misappropriated an essay by Dalhousie professor Fay G. Cohen for a 1992 book on Native Americans by Churchill's then-wife.
Cohen, in 1997, asked Dalhousie attorneys to determine whether Churchill took the essay without crediting her - and attorneys determined that he did.
CHURCHILL CONTROVERSY Essay & statements
Click here to read Ward Churchill's essay, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," as posted by a third-party political website. (The Denver Post does not endorse the website or views it expresses; the link is provided only as a reader service.)
Churchill had published Cohen's essay in 1991 in Copenhagen, Denmark, with her permission, and full credit. But in 1992, Churchill asked if he could publish it again, this time in North America in a collection being assembled by his then- wife. Cohen refused, and she says he published it anyway, without giving her credit, then threatened to "get her for this" when she objected, according to Crosby.
In the 1992 book, Cohen's essay is altered slightly in spots from the 1991 original, and the book says it was "prepared" by Churchill. Cohen is credited in endnotes and footnotes, but no true author is listed.
The similarities between Cohen's work and the article "prepared" by Churchill were published by historian John Lavelle in 1999, and never resulted in a lawsuit or university discipline.
But after the public saw the combination of Friday's story in The Post declaring that a financial agreement had been reached with Churchill and one in the Rocky Mountain News detailing the publishing dispute and the allegation that Churchill had threatened Cohen, negotiations ceased.
"The ... thing about him threatening that lady threw everyone into a rage," a regent said. A former CU journalism professor has also said she once was threatened in a dispute with Churchill.
Churchill, in a phone interview, denied that he stole other people's work or threatened any professors.
"It's been a blizzard of allegations," he said. "First, it wasn't my piece; second, it wasn't my book; third, it doesn't say I wrote it but helped assemble it."
"There was no physical violence," Churchill added of an angry telephone discussion with Cohen over the dispute. "It was basically a severing of ties."
Prof's attorney vows fight
A CU investigation - headed by interim chancellor Phil DiStefano, College of Arts and Sciences dean Todd Gleeson and the law school dean - is supposed to end by Monday with a recommendation on whether Churchill can be disciplined or lose his protected tenure status for wrongdoing or scholarship that falls below the minimum standards expected of a professor.
Lane, Churchill's lawyer, has pledged that he would fight any effort to terminate Churchill, taking years and going to the Supreme Court if necessary to prove Churchill was really being punished for his speech about 9/11. Settlement talks were aimed at avoiding that court fight, while still getting Churchill off campus.
Some regents are concerned they could be held personally liable if they are found to have violated Churchill's rights.
Andrews' institute put out a study March 4, cataloging acts that he argues could be used to terminate Churchill's tenure but have nothing to do with his statements comparing World Trade Center victims to a top Nazi.
"We demonstrate that CU not only has the legal right, but also the legal responsibility to terminate Mr. Churchill's contract," the report said.
It lists several scholars who have said Churchill's research is either riddled with inaccuracies or is borrowed without credit from other scholars.
It also says that two former students claim Churchill retaliated against them when they criticized his views by lowering their grades.
Churchill said he never retaliated against the students who criticized him. Instead, he said, one of the complaining students had stopped showing up to class. "I have conservative students, and they thank me for being fair," he said.
The Claremont report also calls for DiStefano and Gleeson to recuse themselves because they were instrumental in giving Churchill pay increases and praising his work.
Andrews said that a Denver law firm - Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar & Scott - volunteered to represent the university for free if Churchill takes it to court for firing him. Firm attorney Joe Smith could not be reached for comment late Friday.
Staff writer Arthur Kane can be reached at 303-820-1626 or akane@denverpost.com
Indian givers!
I guess I learned it from the Left, but I'm not satisfied with merely knocking someone like Churchill off of his pedestal, I want to see his life destroyed for his vile demeanor.
What is astounding to me is that Churchill is a total fraud and his career is based on a total fraud. Didn't he get the postion at the University due to some requirements based upon his lies? If so, they should just fire him. I can't imagine a jury in the country that would side with this POS in a civil case unless of course it was made up entirely of DUmmies. IMHO, he should be stripped of his United States citizenship and permanently deported for the rest of his life.
Almost every campus in America has lots of Ward Churchills, brainwashing young skulls full of mush, and recruiting new MoveOn.org and Democratic Underground deluded robots. The Ward Churchills of America are the reason that complete loser menaces like Gore and Kerry almost got elected.
Just Fire the Baskurd. Let him take it to court. Colorado isnt in the 9th circuit is it?
I feel pretty emotional about this matter also. (I was at a funeral for someone who was killed on 9/11, and I've been to military funerals since then.) But let's not stoop to the level of our enemies. And let's not forget, after this is over, that there are thousands of others in American colleges who are just as bad as Churchill. He's just the one who happened to get caught, but we've got lots more abuses to bring to light.
He's both an IDIOT and a MORON. (and rather good one's at that !)
By standard psychiatric criteria, Ward Churchill is clearly and indisputably a sociopath.
Diagnostic criteria define anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
reckless disregard for safety of self or others
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated
failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
No Colorado is in the 10th circuit.
this is what I have learned from the left;
I want to see him in prison, I want to see his family bankrupted, I want to see him have to pay everyone I know lots and lots of money, especially me...I want to be ask on all the MSM to spout my "feelings" about this, I want to write a book to later be made into a movie, I want people to worship me for who I am, I want to become a household name
.
...oh, and I want world peace, and everyone to just get along
No, 10th circuit.
Not stooping to the level of our enemies hasn't paid off yet....
Have good cheer, my friend, and optimism. We're winning lots of our battles, one at a time. The world (even the U.S.) is generally moving in a good direction, and American conservatives are the driving force.
In future debates, I will consider research from professer so-and-so to be of the same standard as Churchill's.
Its not Churchill's credibility at stake, its academia's.
Very well stated...but he still should be fired.
"If we are faithful to our country, if we acquiesce, with good will, in the decisions of the majority, and the nation moves in mass in the same direction, although it may not be that which every individual thinks best, we have nothing to fear from any quarter."
--Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:321
Absolutely -- I with you on that one!
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.