March 24, Afternoon Session--End of Churchill's Testimony
Justin Loyola | Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 07:08PM The afternoon session began with cross-examination of Ward Churchill by CU's counsel, Pat O'Rourke, on the ghostwriting he did for Rebecca Robbins. According to Prof. Churchill, he submitted the writing to Prof. Robbins who then made no alterations to it and submitted it for publication. Prof. Churchill explained that Prof. Robbins was tasked with making the ultimate decision of whether to publish the article and she chose to do so without making any modifications. As a juror question later revealed, it was Prof. Robbins that ultimately submitted the article for publication and not Churchill.
O'Rourke then questioned Churchill regarding the plagiarism of Fay Cohen's article. O'Rourke provided evidence that Churchill included this article in his faculty review the first year he was a tenured faculty member but Churchill responded that he did not include the article on his resume.
Next, O'Rourke turned to the University's investigation by Prof. McIntosh on Churchill's claims that several Indians were told to "turn and scatter" by an army post surgeon. Churchill pointed out that the investigation was meant to be a non-adversarial fact-finding body and Prof. McIntosh "exceeded her charge" by trying to discredit the original source rather than addressing the validity of utilizing the source.
Lastly, O'Rourke attempted to weaken Churchill's position that he was the target of an agenda by the University to get rid of him. In doing so, O'Rourke named off the various committees and committee members who would have to be involved in having Churchill "railroaded". O'Rourke questioned the likelihood of none of the members speaking up in Churchill's defense. Churchill answered that it wasn't necessary for each of the members to be in contact with each other and actively seeking to get rid of him as a group, but rather, the external political pressures pushed each of them to work toward getting rid of him.
After O'Rourke's questioning, Churchill's counsel, Mr. Lane, had a brief redirect which focused on Churchill's job prospects after the University fired him for plagiarism. Churchill responded that he did receive a few verbal offers but also believed that being labeled a plagiarizer has adversely affected his job prospects. There have been some inquiries by faculty members at other institutions, but when they check with their institution, no way. Mr. Lane concluded by asking whether ghostwriting appeared within the definition of academic misconduct to which Churchill replied that it did not.
A number of juror questions were submitted to Churchill before he left the stand. One such question was whether the allegations of academic misconduct would have surfaced if not for 9/11. Churchill responded, "the simple answer is no, they would not." He then explained that the Indian Arts and Craft and Allotment Act issues have been known since 1999 and it wasn't until after 9/11 that they became reasons for dismissal. In Churchill's words, "one day I'm a highly valued member of the Arts and Sciences community, the next day they're trying to find a pretext to get rid of me."
This completed the plaintiff’s witnesses, and CU called Tilman “Tillie” Bishop, currently the vice-chair of the Board of Regents at the University of Colorado. Mr. Bishop recounted his background in the field of education and public policy having served as the administrator of Mesa College on the western slope for 31 years and as a representative and senator in Colorado’s General Assembly for 28 years. Mr. Bishop ran for the position based on a focus on the budget problems at CU. Elected to the board, he started in January, 2007 after the 9/11 Churchill essay became public.
Regent Bishop stated he voted yes for termination of Ward Churchill and was not pressured by any other regent, after all, he said, legal counsel advised the regents that they could be called as a witness and thus did not discuss the case among themselves.
In response to Mr. O’Rouke's question on how serious did Regent Bishop view the findings of Churchill’s research misconduct, he responded that he viewed them as “very serious” and ultimately for “the good of the university,” decided termination was required. Stating he did not just “rubber stamp” the decision of the Investigative Committee and the Privilege & Tenure Committee, he came to the conclusion that Churchill could not be allowed to return to the classroom for the simple reason that CU expects students to meet the highest standards in regards to research conduct, then CU should expect and require that these highest standards are also met by CU’s faculty.
On cross-examination by Mr. Lane, Regent Bishop seemed confused by the questions and the pressure exerted by Mr. Lane. He finally recalled that, as a state senator at the time (2/2/2005), he had not participated in the unanimous joint House and Senate Resolution to voice the General Assembly’s outrage over the 9/11 Churchill essay. He also stated emphatically that he did not take into account, whatsoever, the 9/11 Churchill essay in deciding to terminate Churchill. Pressed by Lane, Bishop said he not only did not read the 9/11 essay, but he does not know whether the essay compared the 9/11 victims in a favorable or unfavorable light. Both Lane and the jury seemed stunned and Lane pressed Bishop on this point several times—“for all you know, the essay could be comparing the victims to the Boys Scouts” and Bishop said “yes.” Bishop also said he did not read all of the Investigative Report trusting CU’s faculty on the committee investigating the allegations.
Reader Comments (5)
Kerry
If the Resolution was truly unanimous, and Regent Bishop was a state senator at the time, wouldn't that mean he voted FOR the resolution? Otherwise it wouldn't have been truly unanimous. Does anyone know where to get a record of how Bishop voted on thise resolution?
If he voted FOR the resolution condemning Churchill's 9/11 piece, without knowing anything about Churchill's 9/11 piece as he claimed in court, that says a lot about his predisposition to follow the loudest voices instead of examining the facts and making his own independent conclusions.