12-03-2009, 01:58 AM
http://chronicle.com/daily/2009/03/13370n.htm
> Wednesday, March 11, 2009
> Ward Churchill's Day in Court Arrives
> By PETER SCHMIDT
>
> Denver
>
> The trial in Ward Churchill?s lawsuit against the
> University of Colorado
> got under way here on Tuesday with lawyers for the opposing
> sides
> painting starkly different pictures of both the
> controversial
> ethnic-studies professor and the circumstances surrounding
> his dismissal
> by the university in 2007.
cut
> Wednesday, March 11, 2009
> Ward Churchill's Day in Court Arrives
> By PETER SCHMIDT
>
> Denver
>
> The trial in Ward Churchill?s lawsuit against the
> University of Colorado
> got under way here on Tuesday with lawyers for the opposing
> sides
> painting starkly different pictures of both the
> controversial
> ethnic-studies professor and the circumstances surrounding
> his dismissal
> by the university in 2007.
cut
> Yes, Mr. O?Rourke said, Philip P. DiStefano, who was then
> the interim
> chancellor at Boulder, launched his initial investigation
> of Mr.
> Churchill to determine if his essay had overstepped the
> bounds of his
> speech rights as a public employee. But Mr. DiStefano had
> fairly quickly
> concluded that the essay was protected speech under the
> First Amendment.
>
> The university started a second investigation of Mr.
> Churchill,
> examining his scholarship, because in the course of the
> first inquiry,
> several scholars in his area of expertise had raised
> concerns about his
> work, Mr. O'Rourke said. The university is obliged to
> investigate such
> allegations, he said, because people in academe build on
> one another?s
> work, and scholarly misconduct ?tears down what
> universities stand for.?
>
> In a brief submitted to the court, the university argues
> that a ruling
> holding the investigation of Mr. Churchill to be a First
> Amendment
> violation ?would deny public employers the ability to
> make informed
> decisions.?
>
> The brief cites a 2006 U.S. District Court decision
> involving one of Mr.
> Churchill?s own supporters, a Colorado public employee
> who had claimed
> he was subject to a workplace investigation after
> expressing support for
> the controversial professor on a radio program. The judge
> in that case
> had reviewed applicable legal precedents and concluded that
> the courts
> had never viewed an investigation of an employee as, in
> itself, an act
> that can be viewed as retaliatory.
>
> In respect to Mr. Churchill?s dismissal, the
> university?s brief argues
> that the law requires him to prove that his
> constitutionally protected
> speech played a substantial role in the university?s
> decision, and not
> simply that the chain of events leading to his dismissal
> was triggered
> by his remarks.
>
> Moreover, the brief argues, Mr. Churchill cannot prove
> retaliation under
> the law by showing that some of the regents acted against
> him out of
> retaliation, but instead must show that a majority of the
> board had such
> an unlawful retaliatory motive. ?Because the Board of
> Regents acts as a
> whole, and no single regent has the ability to act on
> behalf of the
> board, Professor Churchill cannot establish causation,?
> the brief says.
>
> In addition, the brief argues, the courts?out of a desire
> to prevent
> employees from manufacturing constitutional arguments to
> thwart their
> managers?have called for defendants like the university
> to prevail if
> they can show they would have taken a challenged action
> anyway. The
> court, the brief says, must side with the university if it
> can show it
> would have fired Mr. Churchill for alleged scholarly
> misconduct in the
> absence of his controversial remarks about September 11.
cut
> the interim
> chancellor at Boulder, launched his initial investigation
> of Mr.
> Churchill to determine if his essay had overstepped the
> bounds of his
> speech rights as a public employee. But Mr. DiStefano had
> fairly quickly
> concluded that the essay was protected speech under the
> First Amendment.
>
> The university started a second investigation of Mr.
> Churchill,
> examining his scholarship, because in the course of the
> first inquiry,
> several scholars in his area of expertise had raised
> concerns about his
> work, Mr. O'Rourke said. The university is obliged to
> investigate such
> allegations, he said, because people in academe build on
> one another?s
> work, and scholarly misconduct ?tears down what
> universities stand for.?
>
> In a brief submitted to the court, the university argues
> that a ruling
> holding the investigation of Mr. Churchill to be a First
> Amendment
> violation ?would deny public employers the ability to
> make informed
> decisions.?
>
> The brief cites a 2006 U.S. District Court decision
> involving one of Mr.
> Churchill?s own supporters, a Colorado public employee
> who had claimed
> he was subject to a workplace investigation after
> expressing support for
> the controversial professor on a radio program. The judge
> in that case
> had reviewed applicable legal precedents and concluded that
> the courts
> had never viewed an investigation of an employee as, in
> itself, an act
> that can be viewed as retaliatory.
>
> In respect to Mr. Churchill?s dismissal, the
> university?s brief argues
> that the law requires him to prove that his
> constitutionally protected
> speech played a substantial role in the university?s
> decision, and not
> simply that the chain of events leading to his dismissal
> was triggered
> by his remarks.
>
> Moreover, the brief argues, Mr. Churchill cannot prove
> retaliation under
> the law by showing that some of the regents acted against
> him out of
> retaliation, but instead must show that a majority of the
> board had such
> an unlawful retaliatory motive. ?Because the Board of
> Regents acts as a
> whole, and no single regent has the ability to act on
> behalf of the
> board, Professor Churchill cannot establish causation,?
> the brief says.
>
> In addition, the brief argues, the courts?out of a desire
> to prevent
> employees from manufacturing constitutional arguments to
> thwart their
> managers?have called for defendants like the university
> to prevail if
> they can show they would have taken a challenged action
> anyway. The
> court, the brief says, must side with the university if it
> can show it
> would have fired Mr. Churchill for alleged scholarly
> misconduct in the
> absence of his controversial remarks about September 11.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.