Analysis: Ward Churchill And The Tension of Tenure

(AP)

Have we just seen the end of academic tenure as we know it?

When a Colorado jury declared Thursday that former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill was unfairly dismissed from his tenured post after he called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns" — when those jurors evidently discounted compelling evidence that Churchill's academic work was otherwise far below par — it was a jarring blow sure to impact the fragile balance between free speech and academic competence.

The jury's verdict — which essentially forces the University to reinstate a professor shown by his peers to have failed to satisfy even minimal standards of scholastic excellence — suggests that tenure is not so much a marriage that can sometimes end in divorce but rather a life sentence with only a precious few opportunities for parole. And it raises an elemental question: How bad does a tenured professor have to be before he can be canned? Is plagiarism bad enough? How about too many self-referenced footnotes? How about shady ghost-writing?

There is no question that Churchill's insulting (and terribly unfair and inaccurate) comments about the victims of the terror attacks upon America caused CU to take a closer look at his academic record. I suspect that school officials had no idea just how outrageous Churchill's views were before they were made public. And there is no question that the review that followed by fellow professors and school administrators raised serious and substantial doubts about the quality and candor of his work as a writer and researcher.

But under Colorado law the latter didn't matter as much as the former. Because Churchill's protected speech (the "little Eichmanns" remark) triggered the investigation which triggered his ouster — because there was cause-and-effect between the two — jurors were required to declare that Churchill was unfairly released; that he essentially had been persecuted for views which have protected status under the law. It's an odious result; a startling example of the law of unintended consequences. Free speech rights trump competence and accuracy and integrity even in an area of our world — scholarship — where such things ought to matter most.

The University is surely to blame for the mess it finds itself in. There is no excuse for the lack of due diligence it performed upon Churchill before it granted him tenure. If school officials had investigated him as fully before they gave him the job they almost surely would have walked away from a deal. But the jury's verdict means that it's now too late to do so. Unless Churchill commits murder, or is found to be a drug kingpin, or completely stops showing up to class, CU seems stuck with him until he decides he wants to leave.

So what's the lesson for CU and other schools? Don't offer tenure. Or at least don't offer tenure until an extraordinary level of due diligence has been performed upon the candidate. Will good candidates stand for such a review? Will they be willing to be vetted like presidential nominees? Will they be willing to sign a form of "pre-nuptial" that allows the university to do what it tried to do to Churchill? It's hard to overstate the potential impact the Churchill case may have upon the intersection of law and academia. And it's hard to fathom how a professor with such a bad history of poor scholarship can find succor under the law.

---

(CBS)

Andrew Cohen is CBS News Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. You can read more of his posts in Hotsheet here.

[leroyplatypus]

This commentary "raises an elemental question": How bad does a "CBS News Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor" have to be before he can be canned? Is failing to do even basic research bad enough? How about presenting one-sided attack as "legal analysis"? How about failing to put a discussion of tenure into any wider perspective? I guess Cohen is illustrating that "Free speech rights trump competence and accuracy and integrity even in an area of our world ? [legal news reporting] ? where such things ought to matter most."

[coffeepusher]

it is interesting how Andrew failed to show the problems with the committee's report, and failed to note that many noted scholars showed that the committee's report was problematic and their arguments and evidence was shabby to say the least. personally I find this a shabby reporting to say the least. Andrew Cohen assumes a simple reason for the reinstatement, and fails to give us the complexities that underly the argument. just because the committee did what you wanted them to, doesn't mean they did the right thing the right way...and just because the jury didn't do what you wanted them to doesn't mean they where wrong. do more investigation before you publish your opinion please.

[LeahMira]

I wonder if any professor who has written and published the number of books and articles as Ward Churchill has could stand up to the kind of scrutiny to which the University of Colorado subjected him.

The attempted crucifixion of Ward Churchill deserved to fail. He was hired to teach Ethnic Studies and he chose to teach the truth. What would you have him teach? Perhaps the white-washed history of the U.S. that ignores the way it has treated its non-white peoples?

While people of all minority ethnicities in the U.S. were sympathetic to the victims of 9/11, none of them were particularly surprised or shocked that the attacks themselves happened. They don't need a college education for their insight.

[bbb33]

Sorry, rog, to let truth and fact get in the way of your delusions:


Source for quote below: http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff04032009.html


"As Tom Mayer, a professor in the Sociology Department at the University of Colorado, wrote in a paper titled: ?The Plagiarism Charges Against Ward Churchill,? the faculty committee accusations against Churchill were ?largely discredited? by a number of respected independent scholars, and the committee?s own report was larded with ?errors of omission and commission.? He writes that the faculty ?Report of the Investigative Committee? itself ?improperly converts legitimate scholarly controversies into indictments of the positions taken by Professor Churchill.? Mayer adds that the three specific cases of alleged plagiarism condemned by the faculty investigative committee, had appeared in writings that were never intended to be scholarly or to be used for his academic advancement, but rather were rather part of Churchill?s voluminous body of political writings. (Mayer goes on to say that even in those three cases, the accusations of plagiarism are ?without compelling force.?) Moreover, all three examples, he notes, were over 14 years old, and the charges about them had been circulated by his critics for over a decade, with no one at the university taking any action ?until he became a political pariah.? "

Nuff said!

[roghil]

"there is no evidence that Churchill's scholarship was compromised, so I do not know why Andrew Cohen is repeating this fabrication.

There is evidence, however, that Alan Dershowitz plagiarized much of his book, The Case for Israel.

The political biases of Cohen are apparent as Cohen repeats fabrications about Churhcill that right-wingers like Bill O'reilly and Ann Coulter put forth. I do not approve of Churchill's comments abut 9/11, but he should NOT have been fired."
Posted by bbb33 at 6:46 PM : Apr 5, 2009

Wow, simply wow! I guess you didn't believe the tenured professors that investigated Churchill when they determined that he committed plagiarism as well as referencing his own ghost written articles as defending his position on his own writings. Not only that, but he claimed native american status to qualify his self for the postition that he had at CU. When in fact, he has less native american than most.

[bbb33]

there is no evidence that Churchill's scholarship was compromised, so I do not know why Andrew Cohen is repeating this fabrication.

There is evidence, however, that Alan Dershowitz plagiarized much of his book, The Case for Israel.

The political biases of Cohen are apparent as Cohen repeats fabrications about Churhcill that right-wingers like Bill O'reilly and Ann Coulter put forth. I do not approve of Churchill's comments abut 9/11, but he should NOT have been fired.

[babooph]

Interesting, the US propaganda system cannot understand the term "FREE SPEECH".IF there is something complex,they must get hopelessly lost .

[toolmangler-2009]

Wow...if you really believe that the U.S. has the best education you are out of your mind. You can find numerous studies that show that American students are lagging behind other nations in mathematics, sciences, languages and the arts. Your comment actually indicates your lack of education which I am going to assume is in an American system.
Posted by sgill1974 at 7:44 PM : Apr 3, 2009



You are misinformed, America provides the best education you can get, The Leadership has stripped the schools of the ability to control students. You look around at all the Asian students in America and their test scores. Those children are a product of a family hierarchy in which the children of the first generation respect the family and will not shame it by (losing face) any wrong act. once a family is truly 'Americanized' that is where the real trouble starts. I am a native born American but that is the "facts Ma'am".

[kamperkk]

We protested the Vietnam War, and were call un-American. But there is not one of you that believes now that the war in Vietnam was right now....Read the WHOLE essay, it makes sense. The U.S. has never taken responsibility for their actions across the globe...Hell we believe that Joan of Arc was a saint. In reality all she was, was a puppet for some very powerful people. So goes for the people that worked at the twin towers. Think about it before you judge.

[karlimhof]

This inconsistency is designed to provide Ward Churchill with all the rationales a man with his ideology might need.
Posted by U-R-So-Wrong


i would venture to ask then, you have read his essay? And you know his ideology too?