Unless you live in a cave, no doubt you’re familiar with the Ward Churchill saga. Today the Daily Camera editors have come to his defense, primarily under the freedom of speech theme and citing past incidents where the University of Colorado (CU) has not defended the faculty against political pressure. Their Sunday editorial ends as follows:
By launching a politically expedient investigation of a professor, the CU Board of Regents sent a chilling message to professors who hold wildly unpopular views: Their jobs may be in peril.
There is no evidence that Churchill, with his flamboyantly odious metaphor, committed a firing offense. Last week, the regents should have said so, thereby making a rare show of courage, prudence and integrity.
Miserably and spectacularly, they failed to defend the central, cherished creed of the university. That damage is done. Now, we can only hope that they do no more harm. We can only pray that, ultimately, they will keep the faith.
While they are busy dragging up the past and playing the freedom of speech card, they never define a “firing offense”. They leave that task to their part time token Republican columnist John Caldera of the Independence Institute . His column states the following:
Article 5 of the Laws of the Board of Regents spells out the causes to fire tenure faculty members as well as their responsibilities.
Among Churchill’s responsibilities are “to act on and off the campus with integrity and in accordance with the highest standards of their profession. Faculty members should be accurate at all times, should exercise appropriate restraint and show respect for the opinions of others.”
after a sidetrip, he continues with the Boards or Regents laws…
The same laws state the causes for dismissal: “demonstrable professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity.”
It seems that reasonable people can conclude a study by the Board or Regents is reasonable “next step”, and that is exactly what they are doing. Last Thursday they started a 30 day review of Ward Churchill’s various writings. (As a side note, the Daily Camera stated the review period is a month. There’s a difference as I found out when violating the grace period for auto registration!)
I certainly side with the Board of Regents that a study is justified. It seems the Camera editors don’t trust the Regents to come to the “obvious” conclusion. The Regents should judge Ward Churchill using Article 5 of the Laws of the Board of Regents, no more, no less.
Additional Daily Camera editorial comments can be round here (Clint Talbott), here (Susan Deans), and here.
