Ward Churchill

Supreme Court Rejects Ward Churchill Appeal Without Comment

Carol Berry
4/2/13

 

Some civil libertarians may be upset—but likely won’t be surprised—at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision April 1 to decline, without comment, former University of Colorado-Boulder (CU) professor Ward Churchill’s final and determined attempt at recompense for what he insists was his 2007 firing for exercising constitutionally protected speech.

The petition to the Supreme Court asked whether a “bad faith investigation” of a professor’s work undertaken “with the stated purpose of finding grounds for termination” violates the constitution and whether “absolute, quasi-judicial immunity” should prevail even when a jury determines protected officials fired a tenured professor in retaliation for constitutionally protected free speech and would not otherwise have fired him.

The justices’ decision not to hear Churchill’s petition allows to stand rulings by the Colorado Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court that Churchill’s termination and CU’s refusal to reinstate him do not stem from actions inconsistent with civil rights law. The high court’s determination upholds “quasi-judicial immunity” for the CU Regents who fired Churchill and lets stand the contention that CU’s detailed investigation of his scholarship, which led to his dismissal for “research misconduct,” was not inherently an adverse employment action.

Churchill, who wrote extensively on Native issues, was fired from CU’s ethnic studies department after a 2001 online essay surfaced in which he questioned the United States’ foreign policy and referred to some of those killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11 as “little Eichmanns,” referring to their role in U.S. policy as being similar to that of the Nazi Adolf Eichmann, a key figure in organizing the holocaust during the Third Reich. CU decided that his post-9/11 essay enjoyed free-speech protection but that allegations of research misconduct raised at that time had to be addressed.

Churchill and his lead attorney, David Lane, later charged that CU selectively enforced research misconduct policies, a contention supported by a Denver District Court jury, which in 2009 declared that Churchill had indeed been fired in retaliation for his post-9/11 free speech-protected essay and not for research misconduct. The judge threw the verdict out on the basis that the CU Regents were immune from lawsuit, a decision now echoed by state and federal high courts.

Following the announcement Suzan Shown Harjo, president of The Morning Star Institute, said, “This is a welcome end to Churchill's case against CU for firing him. CU was right then – because its many committees found him guilty of plagiarism and academic misconduct – but it was wrong in hiring and promoting him. This case illustrates what ill came from an educational institution allowing a pseudo-Indian to self-declare, by box-checking and on his resume, his identification with specific Native Nations and failing to check with the Native Nations or to rely on their unsolicited denials of tribal citizenship.

A joint statement from CU president and chancellor declared the matter “now over” and “a victory for CU faculty.” Neither Churchill nor Lane was readily available for comment.

You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page

POST A COMMENT

Comments

Academics's picture
Academics
Submitted by Academics on
Harjo presents two different perspectives, one of academics: Chruchill's dismissal from Colorado University was for research misconduct, which is quite common in academics and what she terms as psuedo-Indian and had nothing to do with his dismissal but put lets her personally admonish him in public. Let the record clearly state, what he was dismissed for. The whole box checking is another ordeal. Harjo should ask herself, what if academics only allowed full-blooded American Indians to check the box, would she qualify and would others, who have checked the box, qualify. That's were that argument is going and maybe should. But its all about federal recognition and what tribes recognize, not academics.

Matthew's picture
Matthew
Submitted by Matthew on
Men who put their lives in service to the push against imperialism and the horrors of war are crushed. Ward Churchill is a hero of a unique and enduring measure. He deserves support and our gratitude for speaking out.

SD grouch's picture
SD grouch
Submitted by SD grouch on
Why is this news? He misrepresented himself as a member of the UKB to further his academic career and made insensitive comments regarding a tragic situation. Non-Natives do this all the time, an neither his victory or defeat will change things for the rest of us. I'm sorry, but he is not a martyr and I agree with Harjo on this one (an I am not a fan of her either).
3