Genociding Ward Churchill for over a 20th of a century

CNews 29September09

Here's Professor Eric Cheyfitz lying through his teeth in the Fall 2009 (special "Academic Freedom" issue) of South Atlantic Quarterly (ht Leah)

After taking up nearly a third of the 124-page report with this event, [CU's investigating sub-committee] conceded that Churchill’s claim that the epidemic was purposefully started by the U.S. Army’s distribution of infected blankets, although disputed by certain, mostly non-Native scholars, had significant support in Native oral traditions and was therefore supported by historical evidence.

 ...Perhaps this will refresh his memory (Investigating Subcommittee's report, pp. 81-82):

4. We found serious problems in the following areas:

a. Professor Churchill misrepresented some of the published sources he cites, which do not in fact support his accounts.
b. Because neither his own statements nor our investigation produced evidence to support some of his more detailed claims, we conclude that Professor Churchill has created myths under the banner of academic scholarship. Those points are:

(1) That infected blankets were taken from a military infirmary in St. Louis.
(2) That an army doctor or post surgeon advised the Indians to scatter once smallpox broke out among them, thereby spreading the disease.
(3) That the army had stored rather than administered a smallpox vaccine distributed for the purpose of inoculating Indians.

c. Professor Churchill provided insufficient evidence in his essays to support his assertions that as many as 100,000, 125,000, 250,000, or 400,000 Western American Indians died in the smallpox pandemic of 1837-1840 (different numbers appear in different essays). Nor did he provide further information when requested by this Committee.

5. The problems mentioned here appear in printed form over a period of ten years and generally become more extreme over time.

6. Although Professor Churchill appeared in his submissions to our Committee to acknowledge that several of his claims are not supported by the evidence, he emphasized that he plans to re-publish with only minor changes in wording, not substantive revisions, the essay that provides the fullest—and most extreme—account of the Fort Clark situation.

7. We therefore find by a preponderance of the evidence a pattern of deliberate academic misconduct involving falsification, fabrication, and serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research.

CNews 24September09

From our Whatever Happened To...? department: Jefferson Dodge, late of the CU faculty organ Silver & Gold Record, shills for The Perfesser's preposterous ACTA conspiracy theory (ht Leah)
Excerpt:

On March 16, Alan P. Jones, vice president for academic affairs and dean of faculty at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., was invited to the stand by Churchill’s attorneys as an expert on ACTA, since he had published research and spoken at conferences about the organization. CU attorney Patrick O’Rourke argued that Jones’ academic specialties are psychology and neuroscience, not ACTA, and Chief Judge Larry Naves sided with CU, ruling that Jones was not an expert on the group, so the witness was excused from the courtroom. In fact, repeatedly throughout the trial, Naves agreed with CU attorneys’ pleas to preclude discussion of ACTA, saying it was not relevant to Churchill’s case.

Why did CU want to avoid public testimony about ACTA?

CNews 22September09

For those among us with too much time and/or a burning desire to know the off-stage machinations in the latest episode of The Perfesser v. Everybody Else Drawing Breath (actual name may vary; in any case, we're talking about Professor Doctor Indian Ward Churchill's Motion To Amend District Court Judge Larry Naves' decision to vacate the jury's finding in Churchill's favor), the DU Sturm College of Law's Race to the Bottom blog has all the filings and exhibits from both parties. (ht Leah, et al.), These include:

Churchill Reply in Support of Motion to Amend, wherein Churchill's legal sock-puppet David Lane asserts the stipulation between the two parties (which ultimately provided the rationale for the jury's verdict to be vacated) was merely a "draft resolution" that never saw the light of day;

CU Surreply in Opposition to Motion to Amend, wherein CU defense attorney Patrick O'Rourke refreshes Lane's memory with three exhibits:

Exhibit A to Surreply, O'Rourke first presents Lane's argument;

Exhibit B to Surreply, O'Rourke then takes a hammer and repeatedly pounds the Refresh button on Lane's memory hole;

Exhibit C to Surreply, for his coup de gras (Frogese for "supersized final point"), O'Rourke then produces the actual stipulation filed with the court that contains the verbiage Lane insists never existed, and even if it did, it was just a draft resolution, and besides, he was sick that day and the dog ate his homework.

CNews 19September09

A Denver district court judge has refused to change his decision that denied ousted University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill the chance to be reinstated or receive any compensation.

On Friday, Judge Larry Naves denied the motion filed by Churchill's attorney, David Lane, requesting that Naves amend his previous ruling.

This, however, was not a surprise, according to Lane, and does not mean that Churchill's fight has been put to rest.

"We knew what was going to happen before we even filed it," Lane said. "But we gave the trial judge every conceivable shot to do the right thing."

Update: Race to the Bottom has a post up about the decision (ht Leah). Our favorite line is the one that begins "The two-sentence Order[...]"

Update II: ...and here's Judge Larry Naves' order (ht do we really need to say?)

We'd been knowin' what was a'goin' t' happen before we even filed'er. But we gave t' lubberly trial judge every conceivable shot t' do t' starboard thin'.

CNews 16September09

DU Sturm College of Law's Race to the Bottom blog finally gets around to a little review of The Perfesser's Notice of Appeal (and we finally get around to noticing the review, thanks to Leah)
Excerpt (italics ours):

Mr. Mohamedbhai [One of Churchill's attorneys] submitted two Exhibits with the Motion: one a chart showing how often Judge Naves utilized or quoted from CU’s motion to dismiss, and the other an affidavit from juror Bethany Newill describing the jury process in reaching its verdict and claiming that Judge Naves misinterpreted the meaning of the verdict. Lawyers might well smile at the accusation that evidence of an attorney’s brief being used verbatim in a judge’s written decision is somehow improper; indeed, law school students are taught that such use is to be considered proof of a well-written brief—a high honor to be strived for.

CNews 2September09

Advisory Listing of Issues on Appeal

A. Did the district court err by granting Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law?
B. Did the district court err by denying Churchill’s Motion for Reinstatement of Employment?
C. Did the district court err by failing to award Churchill any equitable remedies?
D. Did the district court err by entering a directed verdict for Defendants-Appellees on Plaintiff’s claim for First Amendment retaliation based on wrongful investigation?
E. Did the district court err by failing to instruct the jury on any of Churchill’s proposed jury instructions, which includes but is not limited to, instructions on pretext, academic freedom, and subordinate theory liability?
F. Did the district court err in its pattern of incorrect evidentiary rulings in favor of Defendants which resulted in inadmissible evidence to be considered by the jury?
G. Did the district court err in its pattern of incorrect evidentiary rulings by consistently permitting defense counsel to ask leading questions during direct examinations?
H. Did the district court err by limiting evidence and testimony concerning the American College of Trustees and Alumni?
I. Did the district court err by limiting expert testimony and evidence from Derrick Bell?
J. Did the district court exhibit undue bias against Churchill?
K. Whether an award of costs for Defendants-Appellees is proper?
L. Did the district court err in its rulings and findings in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?
M. Did the district court’s rulings and findings violate Churchill's federal and state rights to a jury trial and to due process of law pursuant to the United States Constitution Amendments VII and XIV; Colorado Constitution article II, sections 23 and 25?
N. Did the district court err in its rulings and findings that deprived Churchill of his statutorily and federally and state constitutionally protected rights?