University of Colorado at Boulder: Investigation of Professor for Controversial Essay

Case Materials

• "University of Colorado Fires Ward Churchill," July 25, 2007: Last night the University of Colorado Board of Regents voted to fire professor Ward Churchill on the grounds of “serious, repeated, and deliberate research misconduct.” This vote came more than two years after the university investigated Churchill for making controversial public statements, including a reference to the victims of the World Trade Center attacks as “little Eichmanns.” FIRE released an analysis of the situation in 2005, determining that Churchill’s statements are protected and that the university’s initial investigation was unconstitutional. FIRE further cautioned that while the university’s investigation of Churchill’s research misconduct must not be swayed by anger over the content of his statements, Churchill was not immune to such scrutiny. FIRE wrote that Churchill freely injected himself into the public square, and that if “information that … legitimately places his job in jeopardy” came to light, “then that is simply the hazard of voluntarily participating in the marketplace of ideas.”
• "FIRE Issues Analysis of Churchill Report," March 25, 2005: Yesterday, the University of Colorado Board of Regents released its “Report on Conclusion of Preliminary Review in the Matter of Professor Ward Churchill.” This report states that no action should be taken against Professor Churchill on the basis of even his most controversial public statements. The report also states, however, that sufficient evidence exists of “plagiarism, misuse of others’ work, falsification and fabrication of authority” to refer such allegations to a faculty committee. FIRE has analyzed the Regents' report and its implications for academic freedom.
• "FIRE Letter to University of Colorado at Boulder Interim Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano, February 9, 2005," February 9, 2005

Media Coverage

• "A pox on both their houses: Ward Churchill and UC-Boulder," Harvey Silverglate, The Phoenix, July 30, 2007
• "Ward Churchill and the diversity agenda," Robert “K. C.” Johnson, FrontPageMagazine.com, July 30, 2007
• "Suit could end in settlement," Brittany Anas, Daily Camera, July 25, 2007
• "Ward Churchill fired: What's next?," Greg Lukianoff, The Huffington Post, July 25, 2007
• "University of Colorado Board of Regents fires Ward Churchill, who vows to sue," John Gravois, The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 25, 2007
• "Speech on Campus After 9/11: Less Free than It Used to Be?," Jennifer Van Bergen, FindLaw Legal News and Commentary, May 25, 2006: Universities have traditionally been places where debate and the free exchange of ideas have been welcomed. But after 9/11, that may be changing -- as some recent, troubling incidents suggest.
• "Prof Ready to Sue if Fired," Jennifer Brown, Denver Post, May 18, 2006
• "Prof's protest of 'political litmus test' raises hackles," Linda Seebach, Scripps Howard News Service, September 10, 2005: Such criticism is clearly within the boundaries of academic freedom (after all, Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado is in trouble because of other allegations; he got an official pass on "little Eichmanns"). Johnson's criticism may be mistaken, but it should be taken seriously and the facts alleged either confirmed or denied.
• "The Chill Is Nothing New," Greg Lukianoff, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 9, 2005: Some would like to imagine that the excesses of "political correctness” are ancient history, but repression in the name of tolerance hasn't gone anywhere. Oppressive speech codes are not only still around—they have actually multiplied, even after numerous court decisions declared them unconstitutional.
• "Inquiring Minds," John Gravois, Chronicle of Higher Education, April 15, 2005: But for David French, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based watchdog group, the mere threat of an investigation into offensive but constitutionally protected speech is an affront to academic freedom.
• "Churchill Wars Continue," Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, March 28, 2005: Both Ward Churchill and one of his legislative critics compared the University of Colorado to an asylum this weekend — showing that the debate over the controversial professor has not been put to rest by a university review released Thursday.
• "Free speech on campus," The Baltimore Sun, March 24, 2005: LET'S DISPENSE with some tangents right off. It's a bad idea for teachers to spank students. There's evidence that women are not innately handicapped when it comes to math and science. And it's offensive hyperbole to cast the World Trade Center victims of the 9/11 attacks as "little Eichmanns."
• "Insults and the Constitution," Suzanne Fields, Washington Times, March 7, 2005: What should hearten everyone who values academic freedom is the way the reactions to Ward Churchill's remarks rebut his slurs, testifying to the power of debate and argument.
• "Free Speech Debate Spurs Lots of Words," Glenn Coin, The Post-Standard, February 27, 2005: When Hamilton College canceled a Colorado professor's appearance this month because of security concerns, it was only the latest in a recent string of free speech controversies at local campuses.
• "Prevention 101," Candace de Russy, National Review, February 24, 2005: University of Colorado Ethnic Studies professor Ward Churchill deserves to be excoriated and shunned. Churchill, as widely reported, likened Americans killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11 to "little Eichmanns." At the same time he celebrated the "gallant sacrifice" of those terrorist "combat teams" who had annihilated them. Elsewhere, Churchill declared that the United States should be put "out of existence"; "it may be," he also stated, "that more 9/11's are necessary." Both public officials and private citizens should exercise their right to free expression by scathingly criticizing such odious speech.
• "Warding off attack," Dan Poulson and Harvey Silverglate, The Boston Phoenix, February 18, 2005: IT WOULD BE tempting to pity Ward Churchill, if he were a more sympathetic character. It seems that whenever he opens his mouth these days, someone gets upset. Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, became engulfed in national controversy in early January, when an essay he wrote three years ago came to light. In the essay, he compared victims of the September 11 attacks to Nazi functionaries who were appropriate targets for retaliatory violence. Since then, there have been cries from politicians (including Colorado’s governor), academics, and pundits (led by Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly), demanding that Churchill be fired. Colleges where he was scheduled to speak have cited "security threats" as reasons to cancel his engagements; commentators and politicians have called him "vile" and a "bigoted terrorist supporter" whose speech should not be protected by the First Amendment.
• "Protecting Free Speech Means Rising Above Professor's Words," Greg Lukianoff, Daily Journal, February 15, 2005: The following text is excerpted from a letter by Greg Lukianoff, director of legal and public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, to University of Colorado at Boulder Interim Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano.
• "Churchill Affair: A Matter of Hypocrisy," Candace de Russy, Front Page Magazine, February 15, 2005: As the sordid controversy of University of Colorado (UC) professor Ward Churchill plays itself out, what is perhaps the most damaging aspect of it has largely escaped notice: campuses' double standard in First Amendment matters.
• "Open discussion must be protected," Jason Steck, Minnesota Daily, February 14, 2005: Fury over University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s inflammatory and crude comments branding victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as “little Eichmanns” is well justified.  But Colorado now stands at a crossroads where it must decide whether to indulge in an emotional overreaction that sacrifices academic freedom or to rediscover the true meaning of the adage attributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”