the Race to the Bottom

An award of one dollar suggests two possibilities. The jurors either unanimously concluded:

A. Prof. Churchill brought the aunguish, pain and suffering upon himself, his lawyer told them it wasn't about money, and they know the judge will address what back pay he should get, if any,

or

B. Prof. Churchill should have been suspended without pay for four to five years for some aspect(s) of the charged academic misconduct, but that firing him was excessive (and motivated by retaliation for his First Amendment-protected speech).

The testimony suggested that as long as the Governor regarded the University as making "adequate yearly progress" toward firing Prof. Churchill, the budget appropriations kept increasing. A "mere" five-year suspension without pay back in 2006 might have caused the state's purse strings to tighten (along with those of the big donors and some tuition-payers).

I'm curious: Did the jury attempt to make any advisory recommendations on what the judge should do about the reinstatement and back pay issues?

I have a question about the award of a dollar.

From all I have read so far, Churchill gets a dollar and now he gets to argue to Judge Naves that he should get his job back. If Naves says Churchill can't get his job back, then it basically cost CU a dollar to wrongfully terminate him, right? Is this a correct interpretation of everything that has happened?

Great coverage, BTW.

Congratulations to Ward Churchill! and thumbs down to the $1 in damages. Attempting to muzzle, and actually firing a university professor (or any person for that matter) because he speaks his mind and writes his opinions has no place in any institution of education (or anywhere else). Those involved in his firing should themselves be fired, and the students at the University of Colorado should insist upon this.

Wow! That is more than I had dared to hope for. I hope that this vindication will prove to be some consolation for the indignity suffered by Churchill. I truly congratulate him on his tenacity and courage in the face of tremendous adversity.

To questionhere: CU will also have to pay Plaintiff's reasonable legal fees, which will be several hundreds of thousands of dollars. That will not be income for Churchill, but will definitely be expense--along with what they have paid for their own legal defense--for the university. So it will have "cost" the university at least a million to fire Churchill.

I do agree with the jury's damage award, as it causes no more harm to the body of the University.

Now I also have a question. Does not Prof. Churchill still have the grounds to sue the individuals who violated his rights?

"Does not Prof. Churchill still have the grounds to sue the individuals who violated his rights?"

He can sue anyone for any reason, but CU will certainly indemnify its faculty and administrators who participated in this process.

"...but CU will certainly indemnify its faculty and administrators who participated in this process."

I see. What about Bill Owens and ACTA?