Churchill wins his case

Churchill wins CU suit but awarded just $1Ward Churchill won his case against the University of Colorado today as a Denver jury unanimously decided he was fired in retaliation for his controversial essay about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The jury gave Churchill $1 for past losses, finding he was fired over protected free speech.

Denver Chief District Judge Larry Naves will decide in a separate hearing whether the former Boulder professor can return to his job or receive pay for years he could have worked at CU.And:Churchill briefly spoke outside the courtroom and said, "it took four years. It took a while. And it was quick, it was justice."

CU "has been exposed for what it is," Churchill said.

"It was found by a jury that I was wrongly fired," he said. "They not only violated my rights, but my student's rights and the community's rights."

Churchill said he was satisfied with a $1 judgment and said his case was not about money.

"Reinstatement, of course," he said. "I did not ask for money. I asked for justice."Comment:  Dang. My prediction was wrong.

Now we won't get to see if Churchill would accept a jury verdict that went against him. Instead, he'll be more insufferable than ever--if that's possible.

Of course, this "split" verdict--Churchill was wrongly fired but doesn't merit monetary damages--is kind of like a hung jury. To me the message sounds like, "The university was technically wrong but Churchill got what he deserved."

Jurors didn't like firing

Alas, the tenor of the jurors' questions made this outcome likely. They were asking about his 9/11 essay and academic freedom, not about plagiarism and academic misconduct.

I was never convinced the jurors would rule against Churchill because of the misconduct charges. I thought they'd rule against him because they disliked him and his anti-US essay.

If you look closely at the misconduct charges, there weren't that many of them and they weren't that serious. You don't have to buy Churchill's explanations, but at least he had explanations, which raises reasonable doubt. His sloppy scholarship may have ended up deceiving people, but I don't think anyone proved he intended to deceive people.

In most cases, I suspect the penalty for a handful of dubious citations would be a fine or suspension. Firing someone without giving him a warning or a chance to correct the mistakes seems unduly harsh. Even if the culprit is Ward Churchill.

For more on the subject of the Native perspective in scholarship, see Historical Truth Helps Minorities and Churchill the Indigenist.