Churchill v. University of Colorado: Thursday, March 12 - Afternoon

Thursday afternoon began with the conclusion of Hank Brown’s testimony. Once the attorneys were done with questions, one juror passed forward the question “Do you think that the reputation of Professor Churchill was damaged due to comments made by CU at the time you were President?” Brown’s one word answer was “Yes.” On cross-examination, O’Rourke, the attorney for CU followed up with the question “What do you think was more damaging to Professor Churchill, the comments or his conduct?” to which Brown answered “His conduct.”

Churchill’s next witness was Professor Robert Williams, a Harvard educated University of Arizona professor with a joint appointment in American Indian Studies and American Indian Law. After an extensive list of credentials, he was qualified, without objection, as an expert in American Indian Studies and American Indian Law. He testified about receiving a call from the CU provost and being asked to serve on the committee evaluating Churchill.  Williams testified that, because he knew and respected Churchill and had recently invited him to the University of Arizona as a distinguished scholar, he asked the provost, and later a member of the committee, to evaluate whether he had a conflict of interest and determine whether it would be appropriate for him to serve on the committee.  Within a week, after receiving no response to his request for a determination of conflict, Williams withdrew from consideration from the committee and encouraged all committee members to do the same.  Prior to withdrawing however, Williams expressed concerns to the University about the lack of appropriate standards to guide the committee, chastised the committee for what he claimed was “neurotic behavior about all things Churchillian” and suggested that the committee appeared to need “adult supervision.”

Robert Bruce then took Williams through the committee report and elicited the witness’ opinion as to why each of the allegations against Churchill was unfounded.  With regard to Churchill’s characterization of the Allotment Act, Williams indicated that Churchill’s claims about the allotments were “absolutely correct” and “gave the committee an ‘F’” for its apparent lack of understanding of the issue. Similarly, with regard to Churchill’s discussion of the Indian Crafts Act, Williams testified that even now he does not understand the committee’s concern with Churchill’s discussion since he believed that Churchill was accurate in his discussion of the Act.  Williams indicated that, in his opinion, the committee was inaccurate in its characterization of Churchill’s claims about the Indian Crafts Act as well as in its analysis of the Act itself.

On cross-examination, Williams admitted that, when he withdrew from the committee, it was not because he suspected bad faith but merely that he suspected that those on the committee “were just in over their heads.”  The witness also conceded that the members of the committee ultimately included people recommended by Churchill himself, including Professors Michael Radelet and Robert Clinton.

Comments

[Miss Kitty Kat Girl]

It appears so though Walker and Williams feel that because American Indian Studies is a special discipline the scholarly work conducted in that field has its own rules. This should not be the case if this field wants to be a respectable field such as Anthropology or Sociology. The people chosen for the Investigative Committee were qualified to review his work and know all academic standards apply.

Churchill's Tenure Committee certainly didn't do the job expected and provided leiniency to his work, which makes the AIS field appears lacking in respect due to Churchill's lack of scholarly work.