This article originally appeared on the website of Revolution newspaper.
On April 2, a jury in Denver rendered its verdict in Ward Churchill’s lawsuit against the University of Colorado (CU), saying in effect they agreed with Professor Churchill—that he was wrongly fired by the CU Regents in retaliation for a controversial essay he wrote right after 9/11—and not for alleged research misconduct as the university claimed. 
This verdict is significant, with great stakes for the battle to defend dissent and critical thinking in academia, and ultimately in society. The essence of the case from the very beginning was the political persecution by a major university of a controversial professor, scholar, and activist; and that’s what the jury confirmed.
This case began in early 2005 when Ward Churchill was the target of a highly orchestrated, nationwide political witch-hunt by two powerful Republican governors and other politicians and right-wing forces after an essay he’d written shortly after 9/11 came to light. In that piece Churchill described the attack on the World Trade Center as an example of “chickens coming home to roost,” and compared the business operatives working in the WTC serving “America’s global financial empire” to “little Eichmanns.”1
Right away Churchill became the focal point of a major assault on critical thinking and dissenting scholars in academia. A chilling message spread to faculty across campuses to “watch out!”—criticism of past or present U.S. crimes could threaten your reputation, your job, even your career.
The university first tried to openly fire him for the content of this essay, but then decided it wiser to switch gears and go after him another way. They cobbled together some mainly old complaints about certain aspects of Churchill’s scholarship, formed a faculty committee to investigate, and used the committee’s findings of alleged research misconduct to fire him.2
The jury verdict is a welcome development, and a setback to the forces who are working to suppress critical thinking on campuses, and in society. But this battle is not over. The University has 30 days to decide whether to challenge the verdict. And Churchill has been adamant all along that a key demand is to get his teaching position back. In response to the question “What’s next?” he said,
“Reinstatement follows rather naturally, wouldn’t you say?”3 There are strong indications that the CU administration will try to oppose Churchill’s return to CU, a decision now apparently up to the judge.
It was reported in an interview with one of the jurors, who knew nothing about the case beforehand, that looking back she had respect for Churchill’s willingness to take an unpopular stand. “This was a truth to him that he sent up, and he defended it even when the whole country opposed it,” she says. “I feel it takes a lot to do that, whether we agree with him or not. It takes a lot for somebody to step out and go against the grain like that.”4
Look to future issues of Revolution for further analysis of this important case.
Notes
1 Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi, put in charge of the trains that carried Jews to the death camps in Poland during WW 2. After the war he was captured in Argentina, brought to Israel for trial, and executed. [back]
2 See Issues #158 & #159 at revcom.us for background on the controversy, and the start of the trial. [back]
3. racetothebottom.org [back]
4. Michael Roberts, “Juror Bethany Newill talks about the Ward Churchill trial,” Denver Westword (online), 4/3/09. [back]