Judge Naves has ruled that the University of Colorado does not have to reinstate Ward Churchill. From the Denver Post.
“I conclude that reinstating Professor Churchill would entangle the judiciary excessively in matters that are more appropriate for academic professionals. In making this decision, I give considerable weight to the United States Supreme Court’s recognition that ‘considerations of profound importance counsel restrained judicial review of the substance of academic decisions,’ ” Denver District Court Judge Larry J. Naves, said in his 42-page decision.
More to come. Much more, I’ll bet.
Update: You can download Judge Naves’ decision here.
Update II: A quick thought. Obviously, I’m disappointed by this, but hardly surprised. Most of you who know me know that I predicted a Churchill win in the court room all along. You’ve also probably noticed that I haven’t been making any predictions about Churchill’s reinstatement whatsoever. The reason for this should be obvious.
The University of Colorado lost the court case. Hands down. CU’s attorney, Pat O’Rourke, got his head handed to him. But, and a big but, he did a very good job of ingratiating himself with Judge Naves, and Judge Naves certainly seemed receptive to those willing to do a little groveling. This is pretty clearly shown in the pattern of rulings for CU handed down by Naves, and it made it real hard to see Naves doing other than nullifying the jury’s decision (damn activist judges!).
Again, this isn’t surprising. O’Rourke seems to be an old hand at ingratiating himself with those in power. Indeed, given O’Rourke’s performance in the court room, I think it’s fair to say that he’s only managed to get where he is by doing so.
It sure as hell hasn’t been natural talent.
So, unless I miss my guess, on to appeals.
Update III: Yep, we’re on to appeals.
Update IV: Y’know an interesting exercise might be to compare portions of Judge Naves’ ruling to, say, some of CU’s motions.
For instance, I stumbled on this line in Naves’ ruling:
Professor Churchill argues that the University is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because the University waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.
Something about it struck me as oddly familiar. So, having way too much free time, I flipped over to CU’s Reply Brief In Support Of Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Quasi-Judicial Immunity, did a quick search, and found this:
The University concedes that it has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, but Professor Churchill’s response mistakenly assumes that Eleventh Amendment immunity is the same thing as quasi-judicial immunity. They are separate immunities.
I’m no kind of lawyer, but it doesn’t seem entirely on the up-and-up for a judge to simply copy portions of his ruling verbatim from motions filed by one side or the other. If nothing else, it’s plagiarism, right? Which is pretty ironic, given the case and Naves’ ruling for CU.
So much for betting my nickel. Looks like I’ll have to find a new one of those. Hopefully at the appeals level things will be slightly more sane. Thing with judges at Naves’ level is that they’re essentially politicians, and since following the usual remedy of reinstatement of Churchill would be politically incorrect (or perhaps more appropriately patriotically incorrect), Naves would face the ire of pressure groups next time he comes up for election. Hence Naves took the easy way out.
I went to the Race to the Bottom website to read the rest of what the law students, who have been very impartial throughout this whole trial, wrote.
I was pleasantly taken aback about how strongly the entry was against Judge Nave’s ruling.
What is right is right, and Judge Nave is very wrong on this.
Yeah, they’ve done a great job. I’m looking forward to reading their dissection of his ruling.
good grief, now the denver post reports court costs claimed on WC
i tried to post this there but failed:
Mondoweiss
Iraq war comes home, war of ideas
don’t believe he mentions WC much but his awareness of occupationalism, a step up and aggravation of tired old controversy-overwrought nationalism speaks of an awareness that echos the same ‘pet pieve’, namely, that just bycause your immediate ancestors suffered untold hardships to bring a salvation of mechanized monocultures that looks more and more clearly like, in fact IS insolvency should make one wonder if all of the americas do not qualify as occupied territories … much like that baton of war preps n threats perping shitty little kike cuntry izznotreal
thanks to my mongrel blood i smell disassimisamelame disease from a thousand years squared away.
diffusion towards the turtle islands happened all along way way before christ (mostly via north africa sea farers and olmecs became negroid via deeper african sailings – see cyclone covey) but nowadays there aint no fractality graduality coherence or cascadement in race class and gender strong enough to prevent disasters it seems – this ruling is a telltale writing on the wallstreet ruled mainstreets were we may now experience how little we have in common and clash with security forces … forces worth their salt would be applied to increase wealth as soilhealth (mountain top on the way to ocean floor as a great american put it) though. America has abused a store of hi-grade resources and allowed itself to be hi-jacked by not stone powder but state power mongering splintergroups desertifyers extraordinaire (better than others for sure .. but at what? At what cost?)
Some people have told him there are consequences to free speech. They don’t understand the concept, he said: “If there are consequences, it’s not free.”
- “(…)Tolerance for politically unpopular views is not always evident on campuses, any more than it is in the world at large, but the university bears a special responsibility to protect freedom of thought and expression. The right to speak, write and think independently is at the core of higher education. It is up to members of the academy to convey this critical message not only to their students but to a larger community. This goal can be advanced if, in the future, similar controversies are addressed in a more deliberative fashion, with regard for all the interests and values at stake(…)” (J. Bertin – NCAC)
I’m an intern at NCAC (National Coalition Against Censorship) at the moment.
We also wrote about this case regarding the connection to the First Amendment Rights. If you’re interested in that citation above just visit our homepage (www.ncac.org) or join our blog (ncacblog.wordpress.com).
We’re glad about a lot comments as well as a lively discussion!
Greetings Jana
Pingback: Kick Him, Honey » Blog Archive » National Coalition Against Censorship
Wow, awesome blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is magnificent, let alone the content!