the Race to the Bottom

Will reinstating Churchill send the message that research misconduct is accepted at CU, thereby giving the school a reputation for lowered academic standards that will scare off promising faculty and students? Or does not reinstating send the message that CU is unrepentant for its First Amendment violation and cannot be trusted to not do it again, thereby scaring off promising faculty and students?

Secondarily, what did the jury’s verdict mean? Did finding for CU mean that there was no academic misconduct? Or did the nominal damage of one dollar mean that there was academic misconduct and it caused his own damage? These are the questions that were batted around the courtroom today.

We spent a full day hearing testimony from Churchill witnesses on why reinstatement should occur, then CU witnesses on why it should not. (CU’s motion for judgment as a matter of law based on quasi-judicial immunity will not be argued as the issue has been fully briefed on both sides and is simply a matter of law.)

Churchill took the morning and CU the afternoon. Churchill presented three witnesses: Emma Perez (by phone), currently chair of the CU Ethnic Studies Department; Tom Mayer, CU Sociology professor for 40 years; Margaret LeCompte, CU sociology professor; David Staub, recent CU graduate with degrees in history and ethnic studies; and Professor Churchill.

The witnesses were not sequestered and made these general points:

n Churchill returning is necessary to the ethnic studies department as he is their noted scholar, he teaches very popular classes that always fill up, and reinstatement will show that professors need not fear speaking their minds.

n The university will not be tainted by the academic misconduct allegations but will rather be enhanced by having someone of Churchill’s stature, especially in ethnic studies. His books have sold more than any other professor’s books.

n Churchill has always had collegial relations with faculty members, and there is no reason to think that attitude will not continue.

n Churchill is an excellent teacher and provokes students to think critically, which is the essence of a good university and much needed.

n Students are so eager to learn from Churchill that they organized having a 3-hour class weekly class in 2007 that he taught without being paid.

n The American Association of University Professors, both nationally and locally, are supporting reinstatement.

n Reason that only 10 professors wrote to Judge Naves urging reinstatement is that only a few tenured professors who clearly supported Churchill were asked to do so, deliberately excluding non-tenured professors who might have their careers jeopardized.

The CU cross-examination made or tried to make these points:

n Perez’s unequivocal support of Churchill means that she will not be able to do her job as department chair and objectively review his work.

n While 200 professors took out an ad supporting Churchill when this issue started years ago, only 10 signed a letter to Judge Naves urging reinstatement.

n No one at CU has retaliated against any of Churchill’s supporters.

n While you may not agree with their conclusions, the various academic committees do have the power and responsibility to assess academic misconduct.

n Churchill has continued to write, speak and teach since his termination, and students have been able to access his views despite him not being a teacher.

Professor Churchill’s testimony was—as ever—eloquent. He emphasized that he filed a lawsuit as “a matter of principle to preserve the concept of academic freedom, which is to say that political powers cannot silence professors because they disagree with their beliefs.” (all quotes approximate) “And to obtain justice, restitution, restoration to the position that jury found I was illegally removed from.” Professor Churchill reasserted his trial testimony that when asked if he wanted money, he said no.

Regarding the inference that he would not be collegial, he noted that throughout the investigation he was commended by the committees for his collegiality. And that he has no reason as a faculty member to interact with the Regents or the Chancellor, those most likely to have animosity towards him. And that all his previous performance reviews have been excellent. Question: If they do retaliate, what will you do? I will stand up for my rights.

In cross examination, Pat O’Rourke was more aggressive with Churchill than in trial. O’Rourke noted that while Churchill said that he didn’t ask the jury for money, he had no objection to his attorney’s comments regarding monetary awards that would be fair. And that Churchill doesn’t need to be reinstated to continue to publish and work on books and do various other things to promote his views.

CU’s witnesses were Dean Gleason, Dean of College of Arts and Sciences; Chancellor DiStefano; and Richard Jessor, CU professor of psychology since 1951, the oldest serving professor. Their testimony was essentially that (a) various faculty committees found that Churchill committed academic misconduct (which was not clearly denied by the jury) and (b) if someone who committed academic misconduct is allowed to teach at a university the school will be damaged because (c) the school’s reputation for academic integrity will be impinged and the most promising faculty and students will not want to be associated with it. And the fact that Professor Perez, head of the Ethnic Studies Department, does not believe Professor Churchill committed academic misconduct means that she will not review his work with the appropriate amount of scrutiny.

David Lane cross examined all witnesses in his classic provocative style. Turning to the argument that Churchill’s reputation for academic misconduct would discourage promising faculty and students, he got each witness to admit that the University had been determined by a jury to be violators of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America (yes, using the whole phrase). And wouldn’t the reputation as First Amendment Violators discourage promising (defined as possibly controversial) faculty from coming to the school? And who in the courtroom had been proved to be illegal retaliators? And could any of the witnesses name any professor who had promised or threaten to leave CU if Churchill was reinstated? (No.)

Both parties will submit findings by end of day tomorrow, and Judge Naves will issue a ruling early next week.