Report Alleges CU's Churchill Guilty of Ethical and Legal Violations
by Jim Brown
March 16, 2005
(AgapePress) - A new report finds at least four major violations of professional ethics and potential violations of law that could serve as grounds for dismissing controversial professor Ward Churchill from the University of Colorado faculty.It may be the strongest case against Professor Ward Churchill to this date -- a Claremont Institute report titled "No License to Lie." That report purports to demonstrate that the university has "not only has the legal right, but also the legal responsibility, to terminate Mr. Churchill's contract," and that the ongoing internal investigation is "fatally flawed by giving a disproportionate voice in the process to officials who have a personal history with Mr. Churchill." Churchill has been under fire for comparing victims of the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center attack to Nazis.
Former Colorado state senator John Andrews heads the Claremont Institute's Western states office. He says legal analysts were asked to look at the evidence, facts, and law pertaining to the career pattern of Churchill, irrespective of his anti-American ravings. Andrews summarizes some of the analysts' findings.
"There appears to be evidence of resumé fraud, academic fraud -- including plagiarism -- grade retaliation against students who have disagreed with or somehow offended Professor Churchill, [and] lying on his Affirmative Action application for his original employment at the university," he says. "He [also] claims to have American Indian ancestry, but he seems unable to back up those claims."
In addition, Andrews says, Churchill has displayed a pattern of intimidating those he disagrees with, especially women.
The Institute spokesman cautions the CU board of regents about persuading the controversial professor to take an early retirement in return for a cash settlement. Rewarding Churchill for his bad behavior, says Andrews, is not the way to go.
"I've been among those raising a voice of warning to the elected regents that if they are not willing to fire Professor Churchill in light of all the evidence against him, that perhaps the voters ought to think about firing them," he says. That could be done, he suggests, by taking out recall petitions and convening a special election "to attempt to remove a regent who had broken faith with the voters to that degree."
According to Andrews, CU has developed an undue difference to professors and university faculty, almost to the point of viewing them as "a secular priesthood."
