March 27th, Afternoon Session: Professor Morley and the P&T Comm.
Justin Loyola | Friday, March 27, 2009 at 06:52PM The afternoon session resumed with the cross examination of former CU Regent Paul Schauer. During the cross examination by Churchill's counsel, Schauer was presented with the comments of Interim Chancellor DiStefano, which stated that the University would launch an investigation into the "writings, speeches, tape recordings, and other work". Churchill's counsel attempted to question the validity of such a broad investigation by likening the investigation to the McCarthy hearings.
Churchill's counsel then questioned Schauer on the responsibilities of Churchill as a Professor. Schauer answered that Churchill's duty was to not harm the University. Churchill's counsel then asked how Churchill had harmed the University. Schauer asserted that Churchill caused a disturbance on a campus due to the adverse publicity brought to the University and parents were threatening to pull their children from the school. CU counsel , O'Rouke attempted to paint former Governor Bill Owens as an influence on the decision to fire Churchill by asking Schauer if Bill Owens was threatening the school's budget. Schauer replied that he may have but would neither confirm nor deny that accusation.
Churchill's counsel, Robert Bruce, then attacked the motivation for firing Churchill by asking whether the 9/11 essay was a motivating factor for termination. Schauer replied that "the 9/11 essay was a very very small part" in the investigation. CU's counsel, O'Rourke, tried to widen the scope of Churchill's responsibilities as a Professor to include exercising restraint and make clear that they're not representing the University when discussing political topics; Schauer agreed that was included in Churchill’s responsibilities.
CU's counsel then called Professor Morley to the stand. Professor Morley is a Communications professor and member of the Promotion & Tenure committee (P&T) that reviewed the findings of the Investigative Committee to determine if the higher burden of proof "clear and convincing evidence" was also found to find Churchill guilty of research misconduct to justify termination. Prof. Morley explained that the P&T committee is meant to be an internal mechanism to avoid this type of case actually going to court.
Prof. Morley was quick to point out that the committee is not under the control of the administration because the committee is made up of faculty and former faculty members. He explained that in the past he has served on seven panels and has found in favor of the faculty member every time except in Churchill's case. He continued by describing his motivation for participating on the committee as paying his dues for prior protection he received early in his academic career from having to serve on these kinds of committees. With this protection, he explained that that he was then allowed the time to research in order to earn tenure and now, at this stage of his career, he could pay back the debt of time.
Morley described the difference between the SCRM committee investigation and the P&T review committee. He stated that the SCRM committee used a preponderance of the evidence standard whereas the P&T committee used a "clear and convincing" standard. Morley explained that the higher standard used by the P&T committee didn't mean they didn't agree with the original determination by the SCRM committee, but just that the evidence didn't meet the higher standard necessary under university rules for terminating a tenured facultying member.
O'Rouke then directed Morley to the three issues in Churchill's case for the P&T to review - professional integrity, selective enforcement, and due process rights violations. When asked what professional integrity means, Morley answered that it varies depending on the occupation (clergy would have a higher standard than professors) and that for a professor, plagiarism, fabrication and falsification would be below the standard.
With regard to the issue of selective enforcement, Morley explained that DiStefano’s strong language when referring to the enforcement of academic misconduct against Churchill was to calm the “angry mob” calling for his termination. According to Morely, DiStefano was concerned that the Board of Regents would attempt to fire Churchill on 5/2/2005, but by using the promise of a "thorough and fair investigation" over all of Churchill's writings, speeches, videotapes, and works, he could get the board's agreement and thus have more time to let things settle down.
Morley defended CU's actions and said that the school must pursue academic misconduct in order to shield the integrity of the institution and that he was concerned that some young man may "pick up an AR-15 in a rage one day" because of Churchill's falsifications and fabrications regarding the intent of the US Army.
With respect to the due process violations, Morley emphasized that Churchill was allowed to bring witnesses and that ghostwriting is a legitimate activity but not in "context" of the academic environment.
On cross examination, Churchill's counsel asked Morley if he ever contacted San Francisco State University about the ghostwriting issue to which he replied that he did not because he did not have time and Churchill's attorney pushed him on this statement. This interaction was the source of the jury's question at the end of Morley's testimony.
Churchill's counsel also asked Morley where in CU's rules that it is academic misconduct to ghostwrite. Morley responded that he used the standards from the American Psychological Association but later seemed to contradict himself when asked whether the APA standards were a guiding principle for determining whether ghostwriting was a violation of academic misconduct; he said that it was not.
On redirect, Morley recalled a former student who told him that "ethics are for chumps" - it was this attitude that he was trying to deter students by enforcing academic misconduct against Churchill. He said he was worried that by relaxing enforcement of the rules it would give students and other faculty members license to commit misconduct.
Then the judge asked the jury members if they had any questions for the witness and it was another hard question for a CU witness. A two-part question was asked:
Morley answered that this was a great question and said he was going to notify Robbins' university within a month. Bruce pointedly asked why it has been 22 months since the P&T report was finalized and Morley had not contacted the offending scholar's university. Sarcastically, Bruce asked several questions along this line, "Why couldn't you find the few minutes to contact the university during these 22 months when you were watching football games." Morley then responded that "Now I see the inconsistency, and now will correct it."
The session ended with Morley stepping down from the stand and CU will continue its case-in-chief on Monday morning.
Reader Comments (5)
I'm confused by this. How does it help CU's defense to seem to imply that pressure from the governor influenced the decision to fire Churchill? I understand it helps to explain and validate why an investigation was done but it shouldn't (imo) have influenced the decision to fire. I assume CU's position is that he was fired for cause based on a fair and full investigation of legitimate charges against him. I'll read the rest of your most excellent blog to see if there is an explanation I haven't considered.
Thank you for the information you have provided.
I appreciate anyone writing in to correct errors. You are not the first. Posting on a daily basis is not easy. In fact, I think the accuracy of the posts has been remarkable. In any event, the next time you offer thoughts, please be more moderate in your commentary. There is no reason to use terms like "screwed up." It detracts from the Blog and detracts from your comments.
Jay Brown
So, Race to the Bottom, you were accurate. Kudos on your great work here.