Jury awards $1 to professor fired for 9/11-Nazi essay

[leo-rcc]

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) -- A jury Thursday found that former college professor Ward Churchill, who referred to victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks as "little Eichmanns" in an essay, was wrongfully terminated by the University of Colorado, according to a court official.

But the jury, which deliberated for a day and a half after a trial that began March 9, awarded Churchill only $1, the minimum they could award while still finding in Churchill's favor, according to Robert McCallum, pubic information officer for Colorado's 2nd Judicial District Court.

While an ethnic studies professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Churchill came under national scrutiny for a 2002 essay entitled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," which criticized U.S. foreign policy.

In a reference to Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann, the Gestapo officer who was one of the chief architects of the Holocaust, Churchill referred to victims of the World Trade Center attacks "little Eichmanns." Churchill argued the victims were "a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire."

Churchill's essay drew little notice until an 1,800-student college in upstate New York invited him to take part in a 2005 forum on prisons and Native American rights.

The invitation was rescinded after criticism from then-New York Gov. George Pataki, then-Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and hundreds of relatives of those killed in the attacks created a media firestorm. Churchill was fired in 2007.

Churchill argued during the trial that he was fired from his tenured position for expressing politically unpopular, but constitutionally protected, views.

The university argued in the trial that he was not fired for his political views but rather for sloppy academic work. During the trial, the university presented several examples of what university officials claimed were cases of plagiarism in his research.

District Court Chief Judge Larry J. Naves has given both sides 30 days to present motions before he rules on whether Churchill will get his job back or will receive back pay.

University of Colorado at Boulder Interim Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano released this statement on the university's Web site, saying: "While I am disappointed by the jury's decision, I am still confident that the process we used to review allegations of research misconduct was appropriately applied in this case. The university attorneys will evaluate the next steps in the legal process. It is too early to comment on how the judge's final decision might impact the campus, as that decision has not yet been rendered."

Calls to the office and cell phone of Churchill's attorney were not immediately returned.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/02/...index.html

Interesting. Freedom of speech has been upheld by the ruling, but the gain from winning the lawsuit is negligible. Any thoughts on the subject?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm a socialist (well centre-left hawk) so, whilst I sympathise with the general view that those involved in high finance; globalisation and so on are (broadly speaking) "f***ing" our lives up, I think it goes way too far to compare them to instigators of The Holocaust.

Freedom of speech is an interesting POV but since I believe that rights are the by-product of responsibilities I guess (?) you could argue that he failed in his responsibility (as a very senior educator) to be reasonably objective. Not sure who exactly decides what is objective in this context though.

Apologies if I haven't expressed this very well.

Kyu

[athoughtfulman]

I think we need free speech, however this does not mean that everyone can do whatever they want, and if they say something which they really shouldn't, then it should be freely debated on why they shouldn't have said it. I don't think that there should ever be a blanket ban on free speech, or any controlling authority abiding over the regulation of it. Of course, there are some things that just straight out shouldn't be said, but the answer isn't to suppress them, because they would be simultaneously suppressing beliefs and ideas which need to be heard.

In the case of this professor, I think the jury did the right thing. Free speech is simply about being able to speak freely. However I do not believe that it is a right for someone to speak completely freely and not expect consequences. And this professor received what he ought to.

[Eilonnwy]

Freedom of Speech does have it's limitations, among those being that you can't say whatever you want in a private establishment. It's sort of the "It's my party, I can kick you out if I want to" kind of thing. Not sure if this is a private or public university but even so an argument can be made that if someone is hired to perform a specific job they can't say some things that would damage the way the university performs. Freedom of speech just guarantees he can't be prosecuted.

[athoughtfulman]

Absolutely. Freedom of speech is a must, but many people misunderstand it. They seem to think it means anyone can say absolutely anything anywhere without any prosecution whatsoever. However those people need to understand that they will be held accountable for what they say.

[Tiberius]

Freedom of speech has one limitation, and that is hate speech, which is a speech that acts to threaten a specific group of people in such a way that could incite violence towards them. What the professor did here was not hate speech, he simply expressed his ideas, even if they were crazy.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Freedom of speech has one limitation, and that is hate speech, which is a speech that acts to threaten a specific group of people in such a way that could incite violence towards them. What the professor did here was not hate speech, he simply expressed his ideas, even if they were crazy.

I'd say freedom of speech is an ideal that cannot be achieved and that there is a lot more than just one limitation.

Kyu

[bozo]

Sounds like the jury was spot on with its decision about wrongful termination and chose to swerve the matter of whether Churchill should get meaningful compensation or his job back.
As regards what he wrote, the analogy was unfortunate because it detracts from the argument he was putting forward.

[Tiberius]

Freedom of speech has one limitation, and that is hate speech, which is a speech that acts to threaten a specific group of people in such a way that could incite violence towards them. What the professor did here was not hate speech, he simply expressed his ideas, even if they were crazy.

I'd say freedom of speech is an ideal that cannot be achieved and that there is a lot more than just one limitation.

Kyu

What other limitations would you put on it?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Imo The professor was in the right. The school was wrong in censoring unpopular idea expressed in a [deliberately?] provocative way. In my country a university does not have the right to censor the works of its academics.

Imo the jury missed the bloody point. At the core of freedom of speech is the right of dissent,even at the risk of offending.

I have big problems with anti vilification laws . My unease was recently confirmed by the UN resolution forbidding criticism of Islam. Austria puts Holocaust deniers in prison. Turkey does the same to anyone who publicly mentions the Armenian Massacre.

That I am offended by the views of another is not enough to silence them.It is arguably enough when a view is likely to incite hatred and violence. I have no idea how to make that definition.

"No one has the right not to be offended" (John Cleese)



http://richarddawkins.net/articleComment...obbs,page7



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Massacre