Two different takes on the appellate decision in the Ward Churchill v. Everybody Else case (ht Fred)
From Law Week Online: "What Will Ward Churchill Precedent Mean?"
The decision could provide a roadmap for public employers to get quasi-judicial immunity for their employment actions, said University of Denver Sturm College of Law Professor Alan Chen, an employment law expert.From Higher Education: "A Loss for Ward Churchill -- and Others?"
"Judicial immunity is absolute, so where it applies, it doesn’t matter whether the decision makers violated a constitutional right, or how clear that violation might be, the person whose rights are violated simply cannot get judicial relief," Chen said in response to questions from Law Week.
After several weeks of reviews, the university announced that the 9/11 essay could not be grounds for dismissal, given Churchill's rights to free expression and academic freedom and the lack of any evidence that his political views interfered with his teaching.Note that Higher Education does not consider the many proven lies The Perfesser told to support the historical underpinnings of his political views to be prima facie evidence that those views "interferred" with his teaching. In fact, most of the commentary about the Churchill burlesque ignores his plagiarism and historical fraud. A jury may be required to ignore a history of criminality, but an employer is not under the same restriction.
Update: Over at DrunkaTovarishch, The burning question "What defense of Churchill would be complete without an amicus debrief from Pravda?"is asked. And answered.