< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://www.sotr.us" >
Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words. - John Wayne

Sunday, February 27, 2005
Big Chief Runnin' Scared
by Bonjo
Ward Churchill has called out the dogs, in this case, the lawyers. Now, I have nothing against lawyers. But liberal lawyers are a special breed. CU is reportedly considering buying out Churchill, giving him a "Golden Parachute" to early retirement. Given that Churchill never saw any action in the 101st Airborne, as he has previously claimed to his own chagrin, we all hope he'll (A) recognize a parachute when he sees one and (B) use it to his (and CU's) own advantage.

In the words of CU Regent Peter Steinhauer:

"The possible damage to the university this controversy has created will take years to recover from."
I'm not one for dangling participles, but his point is well taken. Translation: Lose the baggage or we're going down!

Big Chief Runnin' Scared

Runnin' Scared's lawyer claims, however, that this is about "freedom of speech" and "First Amendment rights". It's not about money, according to David Lane... well, unless it's the right amount of money:

"If they offer $10 million, I would think about it. If they offer him $10, I wouldn't."
The only thing faster than a super-computer is an attorney calculating his portion of a big settlement. "Let's see, 30% of $10 mil... To hell with the First Amendment, we'll take it! And I'll personally see to it that my client's mouth is hermetically sealed!"

And while David Lane would like to pretend this isn't about the money, it is to many people: the countless Colorado taxpayers who are abhorred at the verbal diarrhea they are forced to fund through their state's tax system.

All together class, "Fraud"

Recently, it was also revealed (yet again) that Runnin' Scared is about as honest as the evil white settlers who ran off and murdered his imagined native forebears. This time it involved cries of fraud regarding artwork from Runnin' Scared himself (are they calling it fraud because it strongly resembles someone else's work, or because Churchill claims it is actually art?).

As you can see in the above photo, Churchill spent months of introspection only to copy someone else's work. We shouldn't be surprised--he makes believe about his bloodline, and his military service, why should he actually do his own artwork? We just expect too much of him! Don't we realize that he has tenure? But of course, Churchill claims he received copyright permission to forge the above artwork. That makes us all feel much better.

So in the end, Big Chief Runnin' Scared will follow in the footsteps of his non-ancestors and accept a buyout to simply go away. What a triumph that will be for the First Amendment! But if Churchill really wants to play indian, shouldn't we just give him a plot of land with a pre-built, operating casino on it?
6 Comment(s):
Ward Churchill wrote some pretty tough stuff, yet I haven't heard him lie about foreign policy yet. His take on the WTC was a wrenching, yet different take along the lines of Mike Scheuer's "Blowback" analysis. Too much beehive baseball has us gettin' stung! 

Posted by Collin Baber
Yep, his WTC analysis sure was different, all right. Comparing some stock broker sitting at his desk to a guy in a funny uniform murdering people- "wrenching" is not the adjective I'd use. "Assinine", maybe.  

Posted by Chainik Hocker
I may be mistaken, but I believe his entire essay "Some people push back" (or similar title) was another diatribe on foreign policy. I've only read parts of it, but what I did read was a complete diversion from the truth, and thus by definition, a lie. 

Posted by Corderio
Professor Cordeiro,

LE: I don't see much of anything in this article that indicates anything more than Churchill's attorney "jawing" (just as all attorneys do), and mere journalistic speculation that appears to have been responded to by CU.

Churchill's attorney: Buyout by CU would have to be a big one
By Camera staff
February 27, 2005

'"It would depend on what it consists of," said Churchill's attorney, David Lane. "They would have to come up with a nice package."'

'CU officials Saturday would not confirm that they are considering offering Churchill a buyout deal, but would not rule it out.'

LE: If the quoted statements are not the same statements that have excited you so, what specific other statements are you relying upon in generating your post?

LE: It doesn't look like the "loyalty oath" boondogle on the University's part will lead to any problems for Churchill, who subsequently took such an oath on Friday, Feb 18, 2005.

CU looking for 'loyalty oaths'
By Elizabeth Mattern Clark, Camera Staff Writer
February 22, 2005

'The University of Colorado on Monday launched an examination of all faculty members' files to see if they have signed a "loyalty oath" required by state law. The review comes after CU officials found no such agreement in controversial professor Ward Churchill's personnel files.

'Officials said Churchill signed a loyalty oath Friday after they could not find a copy attached to the 1991 contract granting him tenure.'

'The oath, required for decades, has been a sore point among some faculty members at CU. They view it as a relic of the McCarthy era, when several left-leaning professors were hounded by the Legislature. The oath was upheld in federal court, said Deputy Attorney General Renny Fagan. A previous version was struck down as unconstitutional.'


'CS 22-61-104. Professors, instructors, and teachers in state institutions of higher education to take oath or affirmation.

(1) Every person employed to teach in any state university,... in the state of Colorado, before entering upon or continuing the discharge of his duties, shall take the following oath or affirmation ...

"I solemnly (swear) (affirm) that I will uphold the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Colorado, and I will faithfully perform the duties of the position upon which I am about to enter."'

'CS 24-61-104 Case Law:
Oath is not vague or indefinite and does not curtail freedom of expression. Oath required of employees and faculty at state university, by which taker would swear or affirm to support the federal and state constitutions and laws is not vague and indefinite and does not have a tendency to curtail freedom of expression, since recognition of and respect for law in no way prevents the right to dissent and question repugnant laws. Hosack v. Smiley, 276 F. Supp. 876 (D. Colo. 1967), aff'd mem., 390 U.S. 744, 88 S. Ct. 1442, 20 L. Ed.2d 275 (1968).'

LE: Note that the oath, even if it had been signed by Churchill in 1991 when he received tenure has been declared by the Courts to "in no way prevent the right to dissent". Legal liability for CU's failure to ensure that Churchill had sworn to a loyalty oath falls upon the CU President(s) involved, as opposed to falling upon Churchill himself, for failure to take the oath.

'COLORADO STATUTE 22-61-105. Penalty.
Any person who, being in charge of any public school, state university, college, junior college, community college, or technical college within the state of Colorado, allows or permits any teacher to enter upon the discharge of his duties or give instruction therein, unless such teacher shall have taken the oath or affirmation provided for in section ... 22-61-104, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

LE: Nevertheless, the following statutes may cause some salivation and possible premature mastication on the part of some under the Thunderdome:

'CS 24-50-116. Standards of performance and conduct.
Each employee shall perform his duties and conduct himself in accordance with generally accepted standards and with specific standards prescribed by law, rule of the board, or any appointing authority.'

'CS 24-50-116 Case Law:

Employee chargeable with knowledge of agency's rules. Where a public employee is issued a copy of the rules of the agency by whom he is employed, he is chargeable with full knowledge of the contents of the rules. Jones v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 176 Colo. 25, 489 P.2d 320 (1971).'

LE: Hmmm, maybe he received a copy of the *requirment* to swear loyalty (though, as CU 22-61-105 indicates, the responsibility is CU President's.).

'A finding of willful misconduct is not limited to a violation of specific rules or standards. Barrett v. University of Colorado, 851 P.2d 258 (Colo. App. 1993).'

LE: Hmmm, that sounds like what some want to hear ...

'"Willful misconduct" does not require an actual intent to wrong the employer. A reckless disregard of the employee's duty to the employer is sufficient. Barrett v. University of Colorado, 851 P.2d 258 (Colo. App. 1993).'

LE: Hmmm, "a reckless disregard" ... sounds good to some ...
Now we get to the real "meat" of the matter. Not limited to having sworn a loyalty oath stand the following criminal statutes under Colorado law:

'CS 24-50-133. Subversive acts - disqualification.
No person shall be appointed to or retained in any position in the state personnel system who advocates or knowingly belongs to any organization that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence, with the specific intent of furthering the aims of such organization.'

LE: If anything would have a legal chance, it likely would a charge of violation of the above statute (independent of loyalty oath not sworn) as a result of a (don't hold your breath) criminal conviction of CS 18-11-201 and/or CS 18-11-202 in, of course, a full trial in Colorado criminal court.

'CS 18-11-201. Advocating overthrow of government.
(1) Every person who, in this state, either orally or by writing, printing, exhibiting, or circulating written or printed words or pictures, or otherwise, shall advocate, teach, incite, propose, aid, abet, encourage, or advise resistance by physical force to, or the destruction or overthrow by physical force of, constituted government in general, or of the government or laws of the United States, or of this state, under circumstances constituting a clear and present danger that violent action will result therefrom, commits sedition. (2) Sedition is a class 5 felony.'

'CS 18-11-202. Inciting destruction of life or property.
Every person who, in this state, either orally or by writing, printing, exhibiting, or circulating written or printed words or pictures, shall advocate, teach, incite, propose, aid, abet, encourage, or advise the unlawful injury or destruction of private or public property by the use of physical force, violence, or bodily injury, or the unlawful injury by the use of physical force or violence of any person, or the unlawful taking of human life, as a policy or course of conduct, under circumstances constituting a clear and present danger that violent action will result therefrom, commits a class 6 felony.'

LE: Does Cordeiro have reason to believe that Churchill's writings violate CS 18-11-201 or CS 18-11-202? If so, in what specific portion of which writing?

LE: The ACLU as well as CU's President Hoffman (on more than one occasion) have come forward publicly defending Churchill's rights to speak and write his opinions.

Boulder County ACLU supports Churchill
Organization decries efforts to curb free speech
By Ellen Lokajaya, For the Camera
February 24, 2005

'The Boulder County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday urged Gov. Bill Owens and state lawmakers to "cease any efforts to abridge" University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill's freedom of speech and academic freedom.'

'Hoffman repeatedly has said Churchill's opinion is protected under academic freedom. She also said that with that freedom comes "heavy responsibility to behave with integrity and professionalism and meet the highest ethical standards our disciplines demand."'

LE: The CU at Boulder "Student Body" organization has come forward publicly defending Churchill's rights to speak and write his opinions.

Churchill review expected in mid-March
By Elizabeth Mattern Clark, Camera Staff Writer
February 25, 2005

'DiStefano would not say specifically whether his investigation of the controversial tenured professor includes allegations of academic fraud. As announced Feb. 3, it was designed as a 30-day review of Churchill's conduct, speech, writings and recordings to see if he has "overstepped his bounds as a faculty member" and should be fired.'

'Student leaders from the Boulder and Colorado Springs campuses told regents Thursday that lawmakers should respect academic freedom.'

'Benjamin Martin, student body co-executive at UCCS, said students "do not need, nor will we tolerate, a politically motivated filter for our curriculum."'

LE: Today on Monday, Feb 28, 2005, nearly 200 CU at Boulderfaculty members are coming forward publicly defending Churchill's rights to speak and write his opinions. Total number of CU Boulder instructional faculty (in Oct 2003) is 2066 ( http://www.colorado.edu/news/facts2004/pdf/budget_employees.pdf )

Ad demands halt to review
200 faculty members call for halt to investigation
By Elizabeth Mattern Clark, Camera Staff Writer
February 26, 2005

'Nearly 200 University of Colorado faculty members have bought a full-page newspaper ad demanding that school officials halt their investigation of Ward Churchill's work. The ad is scheduled to run in Monday's Daily Camera.

It calls for an end to the 30-day review of the American Indian studies professor that school officials expect to complete by mid-March. The investigation was a response to political pressure and not based on "any prior formal complaint of specific professional or academic misconduct on his part," it said.

The statement defends Churchill's "right to speak what he believes to be the truth" based on academic freedom rules designed to prevent faculty members from being fired for unpopular views.'

LE: Churchill might not be getting very many speaking invitations in the future, and there seem to certainly be those dedicated to defaming his reputation in terms of the general public, but - with the CU at Boulder President, Director of Affirmative Action, Student Body organization, and almost 200 of his fellow academic instructors clearly either supportive or unwilling to "get out the axe", and a (personally civily liable Board of Regents) proceeding so timidly, where the only attorney among them clearly announced to the world on CNN that he, as well as counsel to the Regents (that would State of Colorado Assistant Attorneys General) believe that Churchill's rights to speak and write his opinions are clearly protected under recent and relevant findings of the United States Supreme Court - where's the beef here?

As I have stated before, the only interesting news story (does or does not Churchill have a constitutional right to not be harmed in his public employment as a result of his speech and writings?) is that which has been essentially ignored. Perhaps this is because, despite the Colorado Governor's ranting, and the Colorado Legislature's toothless "Resolution", the swelling "blogo-flogs", and a specious, soap-selling cable TV media mini-empire more than happy to pander to emotion before reason, and entertainment before substance, all add up to little more than a petty and pernicious lynch mob of hatred born out of fear (of mere ideas!).

For those who would be so quick to abandon "rule of law" for the politics of personal destruction, I recommend that they take the following test - imagine a weird world where Gore had won in 2000 (bear with me now), everywhere one turns one would see fellows wearing berets pompously stroking their goatees, psychedelic pixies dressed in turtle suits frolicking in the streets, Saddam-ites infiltrating our youth, mass conversions from the Moonie church to Islam, the total breakdown of American life as John Wayne and other deep thinkers and political luminaries such as Spiro Agnew envisioned it, etc.

Like a lone gem in the rough of the alleged "liberal-dominated left wing academic community", one lone professor at a State funded university writes and speaks of what is perceived by an angry public as outrageous beliefs, that - The US should unilaterally invade Iraq, killing 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqi civilians in the Baghdad area in a "shock and awe" bombing campaign calculated to assissinate one man in the name of peace, followed by killing 80,000 to 100,000 Iraqi civilians in a "catastrophoic success" (in the words of Rumsfield and Bush) that would create, rather than destroy, far more actual as well as potential and upcoming terrorists than existed previously, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars that our nation must borrow from foreign bankers, and at the same time alienating most of the Western, as well as Middle and Far Eastern nations of the world in the process.

Now that the shoe is (in a sense) "on the other foot" - would you feel any differently about "professor Gem's" constitutional rights to express his (what some would term "crackpot" and "incendiary") viewpoints? If you would, in such as case, feel differently, I say that you want things (conveniently) "both ways", and either do not recognize or respect the concept of a "Republic" (where the rule of law supercedes the emotions of even a majority of the populace). I would support professor "Gem's" rights to free thought and expression, whether he received public monies, or not! The fact that a university professor is supported by the taxpayers does not give us license to trammel his/her ideas, speech, and writings simply because they do not comport with the political "flavor of the day", period, and no matter how much tar was boiled up, or feathers collected, I would not support or participate in such "populist pontification" and "mob lynchings". Those who would should find little surprise when, someday, it is they who are silenced,
and have no right attempt to fall back upon the common freedoms that they (out of their own fear of mere ideas) have trammeled upon in such a short-sighted, partisan, and furiously devisive and hateful manner.

Let us, in our passionate fear of not physically dominating the planet by force, not forge our own fetters upon the very liberties that we seem so anxious to shove down the throat of the 22 arab monarchies, all of which are essentially theocratic, and none of which are democracies. Their blood is just as human as our own blood, their dead children as precious as are ours.

And even John Wayne might have questioned what these Neo-Con morons are up to by now. So it's OK, even "real men" sometimes manage to use their heads, too.

Now Ascending into the Sky ... :) 

Posted by The Lightning Empiricist
Professor Bonjo,

Sorry, fella, once again I got you and Cordeiro confused. Maybe you guys sound the same, but that's no excuse ... :)

Tenure is yours, professor, say whatever the hell you want. After all, "it used to be a free country" ... 

Posted by The Lightning Empiricist
Ms. Lighting:

While I will attempt to create (at a later time) a more eloquent response to the questions posed in your comment, I'll spell out the basics here.

"Professor" Churchill has a right to say what he wants. I do not support any effort to strip him, by governmental or other means, of his right to say and express his views. I would personally prefer that he be required to say them at a FDNY/NYPD convention at Madison Square Gardens, however I seriously doubt the MVM would have the courage to do so.

I do not know if he violated any of the laws you cited. I do not care to explore his work enough to answer that question. Frankly, I have better things to do than fill my head with his drivel. As you are no doubt aware, my cranium is full of plenty of useless information already.

Here at the SOTR site we have documented and cited evidence of "Professor" Churchill's "academic" work - if you can call it that. Its full of misrepresentations, plagerisms, and outright fabrications. This guy was hired to be an academic - I personally believe there's enough evidence in just the work that I've managed to find to hang his academic career from any mountain in Boulder. I'm not saying he should be fired for one essay. I'm saying his professional record is full of holes that I doubt even tenure can fill.

You may disagree with me. You probably do. It is your right to do so.

That's what is great about the debate. 

Posted by cordeiro
Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger eXTReMe Tracker

Mormon Temple
Dusty Harry Reid Dusty Harry Reid Drunk Ted Kennedy Sons of the Republic