So...what does the future hold with the newly announced recommendation of a 'year of unpaid sabbatical'...rather than termination?
Are our state taxes likely to be paying for his salary (bad option)... or will our taxes likely be used in court (slightly better option) as he sues the university for dismissal?
GB
Jim, your comment about the AAUP demanding that the Churchill report be rescinded is unfair.
The recently created AAUP chapter at Boulder, whose leadership (and probably membership) is composed of a few rabid pro-Churchill supporters, has demanded the report be rescinded. However, the national AAUP has not issued any demands or negative statements about the report. Early in 2005, the national AAUP did issue two statements that Churchill should not be fired for his speech, but have been silent since the misconduct charges hit the fan.
On their website, the AAUP says that they are not responsible for local chapters' content. In fact, they don't even seem to know that the Boulder chapter exists. The Boulder chapter is not listed on national AAUP's list of chapters, which was updated this month. A chapter has to have seven active (paying) members, so maybe they couldn't rustle up enough bodies to meet the national organization's rules. Maybe they are just five groupies, who are misrepresenting their "We love Wardo" fan club as a legitimate entity. Churchill would love to have the national AAUP supporting him because that would prove he is being persecuted for speech, not misconduct.
Fair enough, Leah. Although I don't see it as unfair (if the AAUP isn't responsible for a local chapter's content or actions, then as an organization it's either gutless or irrelevant), it is misleading, albeit unintentionally. I've changed the sentence.
Jim,
Remember, too, that the University of Denver chapter that Professor Saitta formed wrote a letter agreeing with the CU chapter. I think you called it an "Us too!" letter or something like that.
The AAUP statement on Churchill is at: http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/
newsroo...tionUnpublished They say that Churchill should not be fired to what he says, and if there's to be an investigation, it should be by other faculty and loaded with due process.
The CU chapter has more than its share of Chutchians, two of whom (Margaret LeCompte and Vijay Gupta) signed the letter charging the Churchill investigative committee with misconduct.
Rosen seems disturbed that Churchill or his attorney might have leaked the report. There actually would be no problem with this. There is double-standard that applies to the privacy of the review process.
CU and their representatives are strictly forbidden to discuss details of the case and the work of the committees with the public. This is to protect the rights of the accused.
Ward Churchill is under no such obligation. He has the right to choose to defend himself publicly if he so chooses. There is no gag order upon the accused not to defend themselves in public.
Churchill does not have to protect the rights of CU the way CU has to protect his rights. It is an unequal relationship, and each party's obligations are completely different.
So while you folks might not like the reality of the situation, but there is a very real and legally binding double standard that allows Churchill to defend himself in public, while CU cannot.
Why do you think we "folks" might not like it? I'm happy to hear what passes for a defense of Churchill and in public is far better than in private.
Laurie, fair enough.
The phrase "you folks" can be read to be overly-broad. Let me fully qualify "you folks" by replacing it with "Rosen (who is clearly disturbed) and anyone who shares Rosen's view-points about the leak"
Thank you
The statement was made that "Apparently, any judge in the country who's ever expressed preference for Coke over Pepsi should recuse himself from any and all cases having to do with soda pop."
This statement falls flat when it is put in perspective of the calls from PirateBallerina members to have the 2 members of the original committee removed. All because they gave rather mild compliments to Ward Churchill.
Go ahead and dance about how YOUR accusations of bias were sooooo much different....
Dance babies while I go enjoy my vacation. Buh-bye!
Those were people who had already expressed an opinion on Churchill's scholarship, Pablo, which was what they were recruited to investigate.
And BTW, if you're going to compare apples to oranges, at least have the guts to use the active voice.
Newsflash: Member of CU committee found Ward Churchill "unpleasant"!
If CU excluded everyone who thinks Churchill is "unpleasant," they'd have a real hard time getting a quorum. The investigative committee would be comprised of MiniMe, Inflated Scrotum Guy, and whatever random rubber-chicken-hat-wearing freak they could pull off the street that day.
If this is the smoking-est gun Churchill can come up with, Lane is never going to see a payday off this case.
Commenting by HaloScan
