Comments on: $1.00

By: Stephen Littau

Stephen Littau — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 18:05:23 +0000

If CU knew that Churchill was likley plagiarising and decided not to launch an investigation until after his 9/11 screed, then I say shame on CU. In just about every class I take I am required to read over the university’s plagiarism policy. Any student who is caught suffers severe consequences.

But maybe things have changed. After all, this did not disqualify Joe Biden from becoming the next Vice President of the United States!

By: Akston

Akston — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 06:34:51 +0000

I also despise Ward Churchill. He makes that very easy to do. While I concede that he is articulate and perhaps well-read, he tends to use these advantages to browbeat young college students and con others into buying into all manner of snake oil. He’s a hate-mongering grifter.

I completely agree with the original post that matters like this are exacerbated or even created by the ill-advised practice of the government having a stake in any business. We’re likely on the verge of many more such conflicts as the Feds buy into more and more companies using our future earnings.

I also agree that this should have been about free association between Churchill and his employer. He shouldn’t have been able to sue them for firing him any more than they should have been able to sue him for leaving. No one has a “right” to a job any more than an employer should have a “right” to an employee.

Given my view of him and the right of free association, I was surprised to still be conflicted about this case. Here’s the problem for me:

CU could have investigated and fired him for his obvious lies and plagiarisms years ago. Many knew about these things for quite a while. It was only after he published his detestable views about 9/11 that the college apparently acceded to pressure from Governor Owens to fire him.

His defense was successfully able to convince the jury that it was State pressure that lead to his dismissal, not his lies and plagiarisms.

This was the university’s case to lose. If they don’t act until government pressure makes them, it becomes an issue of the government getting someone fired because he wrote something that people didn’t like. That’s pretty darned close to a first amendment issue to me.

But I still despise the man.

By: Brad Warbiany

Brad Warbiany — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:51:10 +0000

Stephen, Read Warren Meyer on this topic. I think he lays it out rather simply. Tenure is designed to protect controversial speech. CU claimed they fired him not for his controversial speech, but for his lack of any academic rigor in his work -- but there is no academic rigor in most racial/gender studies programs generally, so here it's just a cover to fire him for his controversial speech. The court may be right to find that CU illegally fired him -- not a freedom of association issue, but rather a breach of contract (tenure) issue.