Over in the comments at DrunkaSnoozinNLosin, Wm T Sherman finds a particularly whiney nest of academic tapeworms. The Gen'r'l takes us through the academic alimentary canal step by squishy step:
Rather than insist on counseling, suspension, or both for the specific idiots involved, the black student union at UCSD has issued demands (the Gen'r'l notes later) that "Chancellor Fox and the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, and the Academic Senate mandate a diversity sensitivity requirement for every undergraduate student to take an African-American studies, Ethnic Studies, and Gender Studies before they graduate from UC San Diego." Yeah, that'll work.
We're having a PC situation at the local U.C. campus.
Offices 'stormed' after noose found in library:
List of demands (in 6 point font):
Update: As despicable an act as hanging a noose in the university library is, it is as much "free speech" as burning a US flag, dropping a crucifix in a jar of urine, or referring to innocent terrorism victims as "little Eichmanns." Incidentally, given the suspicious nature of some "hate crimes" on college campuses, it seems odd that UCSD and the local police have not released the name or race of the female student who reportedly confessed to hanging the noose.
Update II: An anonymous letter allegedly written by the student who hung the noose in the UCSD library has been circulating on that campus for the past few days (ht Wm T Sherman). The author claims she is a minority student who simply hung the noose a friend tied above her desk, and forgot to take it down. If we had a dime for every time that's happened to us....
Given The Perfesser's dual proclivities for historical fabulism and ghost-writing, we think we may have discovered how he's financing his appeal: Ward Churchill Essays and Term Papers. Maybe he'll even generate enough revenue to pay CU that $52K in legal costs.
One of our many jackbooted thugs turns out to be a legal wonk of sorts, and gives us a basic overview of the Churchill appeal process: First off, it won't be about the First Amendment, or The Perfesser's academic freedom, or his historical veracity, or his freedom of speech, or even about that "eagle" feather he used as a prop during his testimony; sez wonk: "This is no do-over." The appeal is all about whether District Court judge Larry J. Naves made a legal error (or errors) in his ruling to vacate the jury's verdict and put Churchill out on the street. The appeal, by the way, will be heard by a three-judge panel (which three won't even be known until the briefs are all finished floating in).
Finally, some real news over at coloradoaim:
Russell Means Freedom
|“An upside down flag is an international signal of distress… now we, the Indian nations, are in distress. I will wear this flag upside down as long as my people are in distress!” Russell Means. Oglala Lakota patriot|
So, Russ: Does that mean the Japanese are not in distress, or that they are always in distress? BTW: An upside-down US flag is an American's plea for help from other Americans. Since Russ is the Chief Facilitator for some other country, why would he assume Americans would pay any attention to him? We mean, despite his obvious value as comic relief, that is. PS, Russ: Love the watch. Nice touch.
In our comments, Klaymore reports the discovery of BAMN ("Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary"), a group that wants to overturn California's Proposition 209, which in 1996 amended the state's constitution (text here) to prohibit affirmative action and racial quotas in the state's public institutions, including its colleges and universities. What's interesting is that BAMN is certain that somehow, with just a few words added to the state's constitution, California managed to create a legal magic bullet that selectively discriminates against Native Americans, Latinos, and blacks while discriminating for whites and Asians.
Think we're kidding?
Proposition 209 intentionally discriminates against Latina/o, black and Native American applicants in three separate, but interrelated ways.Here's the text of the amendment to the state's constitution again. Everybody see the clause that explicitly targets Latino, black, and Native American students? Good. Never mind that this complaint, allegedly filed a week ago in US District Court, reads like something written by students admitted to law school to satisfy an affirmative action quota. Here's a thought: Could it be that the discrimination is not racial at all, but socially cultural? That somehow, students from social cultures that prize scholarship and hard work will prevail where students from social cultures that prize perpetual victimhood entitlement will not?
First, Proposition 209 prohibits the University from pursuing racial diversity and integration even though the University may continue to pursue every other form of diversity and integration.
Second, Proposition 209 has prohibited the University from considering racial inequality in education in the same way that it considers other, lesser forms of inequality in education.
Third, Proposition 209 explicitly aimed at driving down and holding down the numbers of racially-defined groups of students and applicants by forcing the University to apply its normal admission criteria in ways that capture and magnify the racial segregation and inequality in elementary and secondary education.
The racial target of 209 is explicit: the only supposedly underqualified applicants it targets are those who are Latina/o, black, or Native American.
Every long journey requires a first step, however modest (via Ace of Spades)
Westwad's Michael Roberts continues to publish
What are the grounds of the [Churchill] appeal?Funny... we thought it was always a good idea to think long and hard before opening your mouth. Frankly, it's surprising that Lane is still representing Churchill, what with his amateurish lawyering during Teh Trial (Lane may be the new Johnnie Cochran of courtroom histrionics, but he was easily and embarrassingly outmaneuvered by CU defense attorney Patrick O'Rourke on the immunity issue—no doubt the reason real attorneys are handling Churchill's appeal, and Lane has been demoted to PR flak).
"We won the jury trial, but then the judge tossed it and gave it to CU -- and he gave the university's regents immunity," [Churchill legal sock-puppet David] Lane says. "We're arguing that the judge shouldn't have done that. It's very important that the regents be held accountable when they violated an amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"Tenure means nothing anymore if the regents are never going to be held accountable for constitutional violations."
As for those repercussions, Lane believes they're already being felt.
The decision "has already had the effect of causing people to think long and hard before they every [sic] open their mouths about any controversial issues," he argues.
What PB post would be truly complete without a ht to Leah? Today's tip to her requires at least a sombrero: The Perfesser offers praise for Pike, the book his dog, Benjie, wrote:
“Without so much as a sideways glance towards gentility, Pike is one righteous mutherfucker of a read. I move that we put Whitmer’s balls in a vise and keep slowly notching up the torque until he’s willing to divulge the secret of how he managed to hit such a perfect stride his first time out of the blocks.”Fucked with wood rasps, balls in vices—what is it about these two that makes us suspect they have matching gimp suits?
Update: $15.95 for a frigging paperback?
Update II: jgm of DrunkaSomethingSomethingSomething fame notes in our comments that Benjie promised him a copy of Pike when it was published. Good luck with that, John.
The filed version of the National Lawyers Guild amicus brief has been posted on wardchurchill.net (since DBAB websites have a habit of disappearing without notice, we've taken the liberty of copying it here) (ht Leah, who notes that signatory English professor Eric Cheyfitz is grouped with "Law Professors and Attorneys" in the brief; apparently the "Fatuous Windbags and Contemptible Frauds" group was already full)
We notice that law professor Robert Williams is on the list; longtime PB readers will recall Williams was an original member of The Five Stooges but quickly faded over the horizon when it was revealed that he had spent the past few years citing The Perfesser's bogus history and generally lavishing praise on The Perfesser whenever afforded the opportunity.
For newcomers to PirateBallerina, we offer an updated "Guide to PirateBallerina's Churchilliana." You can also click on the various titles under our "Essays & Articles" list on the lefthand side of this page for a good overview of what we consider some of our best work.
CNews 19February10 - The Sequel
Speak of the debbil, The Perfesser's new appellate mouthpiece, Antony M. Noble, filed Churchill's Opening Brief (pdf, 374k) freshly minted just yesterday. (courtesy anonymous benefactor)
The brief has three arguments:
I. The trial court erred by granting the University’s motion for a directed verdict as to the first claim for relief because Professor Churchill presented ample evidence at trial for the jury to determine that the investigation into his writings and public speeches was an adverse employment action.
II. The trial court erred in granting the University’s motion for judgment as a matter of law based on quasi-judicial immunity because the Regents did not act in a judicial capacity as they pre-judged the case based on their own political viewpoints and political pressure.
III. The trial court erred by denying Professor Churchill’s motion for reinstatement of employment because reinstatement, which is the preferred remedy, is supported by the jury’s verdict and would have alleviated the chilling effect of the University’s First Amendment violation.
We'll leave it as an exercise for the attorneys among us to determine how well Noble handles each. One other thing occurs to us: Where's The Perfesser getting the bucks to hire such high-octane legal talent? He's already hit up his dune buggy attack battalion for money to pay for a $50k trial transcript; it's a cinch the french-frying legion from which the DBAB earns its daily tofu doesn't offer enough overtime for them to pay for this, as well. So... really, how many mortgages can Churchill's remodeled two-story carry? In this market? In this economy? Please tell us this isn't our Stimulus dollars at work....
[this post was originally Update II to today's first post, but we felt the importance of this brief necessitated its own comment thread. -ed.]
Update (20February10): The Daily Camera reports this morning that David Lane brought in other attorneys with more appellate expertise and more time to devote to the case. "We're all a team," Lane told the Camera.
Yet another amicus brief has been filed on
Update: The ever-vigilant Leah points out in comments that we missed the most interesting tidbit of this new amicus brief: The Certificate of Service (or, more succinctly, what's missing from the Certificate of Service). Sez Leah:
The last page is the "certificate of service", which indicates that lawyers for the plaintiff and defendant have received copies. Lane's name is not on this list. Besides O'Rourke, two other lawyers are listed: Antony M. Noble and Thomas K. Carberry....and another PB correspondent points out to us that it's odd that Lane didn't even sign on to the brief, something we hear is pretty common practice. What are The Perfesser's new cochrans trying to hide (besides the obvious shame of sharing the same profession with such a posturing, incompetent, balloon-chasing clown)?
Noble is a Colorado appellate attorney and knows a little something about qualified immunity, having argued two recent cases ([link]). Carberry is a high powered criminal defense attorney (enough said).
It finally looks like Churchill is actually paying for competent legal representation, instead of using David "I am so desperate for attention, I will represent Balloon Dad" Lane for the appeal.
Update III: Commenter Aaron directs our attention to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education about the AAUP's role in this amicus brief. Virtually all the commenters there whip AAUP like a rented mule.
It's the most wonderful time of the year again: The 15th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Book Fair is Saturday and Sunday, March 13 and 14, 2010. All the usual suspects will be there to lout-shout, including The Perfesser and all your other favorite clowns. This year, there's a special treat: Valet bike parking—great news for those cyclists late for their appointment at the scrotum inflation booth.
Update: DrunkaGot2HisGoogleAlertEmailBeforeWeDid also reports on the Book Fair, but cracks wiser, as usual. Hmmmm.... has that shipment of quicklime arrived yet?
We found the following plea (along with its attachment, MS Word format) in our mailbox this morning.
FROM HEIDI BOGHOSIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD:So, to summarize, Natsu "Mrs. Churchill #4" Saito aka Truthforce is on the board of governors of one of the signatory organizations (the Society of American Law Teachers)—and the name of noted attorney (and future Nobel Prize recipient) Mumia Abu-Jamal appears on the directors page of the NLG, no doubt to make attorneys like Saito look ethical). SALT, by the way, makes the ACLU look like the NRA.
I am writing to ask if you will sign on to the attached draft amicus brief opposing the extension of absolute immunity to state university officials.
This brief argues that absolute (“quasi-judicial”) immunity should not be extended to the Regents of the University of Colorado in the case of Ward Churchill, and that credible claims of retaliatory investigation and/or termination should be heard by the courts. It was drafted by the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) and several law professors, in consultation with Ward Churchill’s appellate legal team.
The Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) has signed on, as have a number of attorneys and professors, including Derrick Bell, Kathleen Cleaver, Richard Falk, and Michael Ratner.
As you may be aware, immunities are a major (and expanding) obstacle to lawsuits challenging violations of constitutional rights by government officials. In this [42 U.S.C. sec. 1983] case, the trial judge vacated the jury’s verdict that the University of Colorado had fired Ward Churchill in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, on the grounds that the Regents of the University have absolute immunity from suit. We believe this decision undermines the foundation of academic freedom and sets a dangerous precedent which allows state universities to terminate or discipline professors with impunity.
The brief is due on February 18. If you would like to sign on, or have questions, please reply by Tuesday. Feb. 16 to me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please include your name, title (if applicable), institutional or firm affiliation (for identification purposes only) and e-mail address. If you are signing on as an organization, please send a statement of interest.
Finally, we hope you will circulate this e-mail to other lawyers or law professors concerned about protecting constitutional rights.
National Lawyers Guild
132 Nassau Street #922
New York, NY 10038
212-679-5100, ext. 11
In any case, we've saved for posterity the inimicus—er, amicus—brief here, for those attorneys among us who, though lacking Mumia's legal virtuosity, may yet gain some modicum of wisdom from its pages.
Durham-in-Wonderland blogger KC Johnson critiques the AAUP's latest excursion into agitprop, Journal Of Academic Freedom, over at Minding The Campus. The title (spoiler alert!): "The AAUP Strikes Out . . . Again" (ht the Unflappable—or, at the very most, only Mildly Flappable—Leah)
Just a taste:
Schrecker's essay [...] reads more like a defense brief, portraying [Ward] Churchill as an extraordinary scholar and wonderful teacher, driven out of the academy on trumped-up charges....read it all (now, not later, dammit).
Schrecker passed along without skepticism a claim that Churchill "has helped to shape the discourse of the modern Indian rights movement" (which, if true, suggests that the scholarship of the "modern Indian rights movement" is worthless).
One of our rotating quotes (which serendipitously appeared when we reviewed PB's front page) seems apropos: "Tailoring the facts to fit one's theory constitutes neither good science nor good journalism. Rather, it is intellectually dishonest and, when published for consumption by a mass audience, adds up to propaganda.' The author of that pearl of wisdom? Why, none other than "extraordinary scholar and wonderful teacher" Ward Churchill. (It may be the one truth he's ever uttered. No, wait... he also said "I was hired for what I do." So we have almost a quarter of the first page of our soon-to-be-published The Collected Truisms of Ward Churchill already in the bag.)
Meanwhile, DrunkaBoogerEatinMoron highlights the latest episode of Keith Windschuttle's debunkathon of "the stolen generations of Aboriginal children"
Sweet Baby-Crappin' Jesus! We just noticed that we have written over 1000 posts here at PB. Anybody got a smiley icon that shows pride-of-achievement mixed with consternation?
OT: A most excellent critique of the latest Federal budget. The opening quote from Alexis de Tocqueville is priceless: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
According to this website,