Ward Churchill
2012 Year in Review: Colorado Courts Continue to Play Politics
Colorado Courts Continue to Play Politics in 2012…
Another tumultuous year has come and gone for the Colorado judiciary – and once again, Colorado Citizens and taxpayers have been hammered by the gavels of Colorado judges pounding their personal preferences over the will of the people – and the rule of law.
2012 saw the advancement of a frivolous, groundless, and vexatious politically-motivated lawsuit attempting to overturn a Colorado Constitutional Amendment (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, colloquially known as “TABOR”) through the Federal courts (with oral arguments on a Motion to Dismiss in February, and proceeding to trial on a ruling in July). The District Court judge still has not issued a ruling in the case, but whatever the ruling, the case is almost certain to be appealed, and may ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Some good news came from the Colorado judiciary in March, as the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the Colorado Court of Appeals in striking down the CU Gun Ban. Unfortunately, the University of Colorado administration introduced policies designed to circumvent the ruling shortly thereafter, and the self-defense rights of Colorado citizens within the CU demesne continue to be threatened with the backing of many (if not most) of the CU Regents.
More good news in April, as a (Federal) court struck down Colorado’s unconstitutional “Amazon Tax” (as predicted by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold in testimony before its passage in 2010).
In May, the Colorado Car Tax (a.k.a. FASTER vehicle registration “fee”) was challenged in court as a violation of the state Constitution (the case is still winding its way through the courts).
In September, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected Ward Churchill’s attempt to force the University of Colorado to reinstate him (Churchill recently announced his intent to appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court).
Clear The Bench Colorado helped Colorado voters to “Know Your Judge” with substantive evaluations of judicial performance prior to the November elections – the ONLY source of reliable, substantive information on judges appearing on the ballot.
Remaining statewide elections were significantly impacted (if not effectively pre-determined outright) by the results of the Colorado Supreme Court’s December 2011 rulings on the reapportionment of state legislative districts – leading to lopsided majorities for Democrats in both chambers of the state legislature, despite actually receiving fewer votes overall.
Colorado courts continued to be a central battlefield for Education policy, as the ‘Lobato’ case advanced to the Colorado Supreme Court in the “Super Bowl of school funding litigation” and the Douglas County school choice voucher program case advanced to the Colorado Court of Appeals. (Interestingly, the Denver District Court judges involved in each case – Judge Sheila Rappaport in the ‘Lobato’ case, and Judge Michael Martinez in the Douglas County school choice case – are both scheduled to appear on the 2014 ballot).
Cases such as Lobato (particularly Rappaport’s biased ruling) and the politicized nature of the court’s involvement in the congressional redistricting and state legislative reapportionment cases – highlight the importance of fair and impartial courts and of judges who exercise proper restraint (in accordance with the rule of law) in considering – let alone deciding – issues of policy more appropriate for the elected, representative branches of government. Our courts have an important – even vital – role to play in our society and system of government. Deciding issues of policy – instead of fairly and impartially upholding the law – is not it.
Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.
However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Colorado Supreme Court rejects Ward Churchill appeal – University of Colorado not forced to re-instate to faculty
The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 55-page ruling issued Monday morning, rejected fired University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s appeal and request to be re-instated to the CU faculty.
As reported by Clear The Bench Colorado at the end of May, Churchill’s attempts to portray the case as an issue of “academic freedom and tenure at universities” were undermined by the backing of many academic groups (including the American Council on Education, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the Association of American Universities) for the CU Board of Regents’ decision (and right) to fire Churchill.
In the academic groups’ amicus brief filed with the Colorado Supreme Court supporting the University of Colorado’s position, the groups state that
the principles of academic freedom should result in support for the university’s position. “Because universities are the entities best suited to make decisions about their faculties, they are entitled to autonomy in adjudicating claims regarding academic integrity.”
The Colorado Supreme Court apparently found this argument persuasive:
As the Supreme Court recognized in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), one of the “essential freedoms” of an institution of higher learning is “to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” Id. at 312 (quoting Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 263 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)). This reasoning strongly suggests that the Regents must be granted a certain degree of autonomy in their employment decisions to ensure that they are not forced through litigation to retain a professor who has engaged in repeated instances of academic dishonesty. To hold otherwise could compromise the University’s institutional mission and integrity.
The court rejected Churchill’s claim that his firing constituted a violation of his 1st Amendment (free-speech) rights (he had argued that the investigation into his academic fraud was based on “bad faith” retaliation for his controversial – but protected – political speech) on grounds of the CU Board of Regents’ immunity from such claims:
we hold that Churchill’s bad faith investigation claim is barred by qualified immunity because the Regents’ investigation into Churchill’s academic record does not implicate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right or law.
In fact, the entire ruling hinged on “quasi-judicial immunity” exercised by the CU Board of Regents:
We ultimately conclude that the Regents are entitled to absolute immunity because their role as quasi-judicial public officials was functionally comparable to the role of a judge.
Although we applaud the court’s ruling in rejecting Churchill’s claim and attempt to use the courts to force the University of Colorado to re-instate him on the faculty, some aspects of the ruling are troubling – in particular, the court’s embrace of a principle that the actions of public officials may be above the law and beyond accountability:
If a public official’s action falls under the auspices of absolute immunity, then the doctrine provides that public official with complete and total immunity from suit, irrespective of how egregious or unlawful the action may have been.
Ultimately, the court’s ruling in No. 11SC25, Churchill v. University of Colorado at Boulder affirmed and strengthened the power of the CU Board of Regents to “to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”
On the whole, this should be viewed as a victory for the ability of a university’s governing board (here, the CU Board of Regents) to determine, decide upon, and implement program and personnel actions in pursuit of its “institutional mission” – with the precautionary note that affirming a shield of “quasi-judicial immunity” for the Board’s decisions raises the spectre of potential violations of fundamental rights of faculty, students, or shareholders (taxpayers) behind such shield in the future.
Our View:
Free speech and academic freedom are important rights worthy of being defended, but Ward Churchill’s transparent attempt to extend his played-out “fifteen minutes of fame” and violate the rights of others (including forcing the University of Colorado – and by extension, Colorado taxpayers – to provide him a sheltered, comfortable livelihood) is, contrariwise, contemptible.
Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.
However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Colorado Supreme Court to issue ruling (Monday) on forcing the University of Colorado to re-hire Ward Churchill
The Colorado Supreme Court is scheduled to announce a ruling in the case filed by fired University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, who sought a court order forcing CU to re-instate him as a tenured professor at the university, this Monday (according to a report filed by Law Week Colorado).
A ruling Monday will represent an extraordinarily rapid resolution of the case (oral arguments before the court were held as recently as June 7th of this year), which probably does not bode well for Churchill. Churchill sought to present the case as a 1st Amendment issue; the CU Board of Regents argued that it has “quasi-judicial immunity” in hiring (and firing) decisions. As reported in the Denver Post late May, the court’s ruling will likely address both arguments:
The Colorado Supreme Court announced in 2011 that it would hear Churchill’s appeal, including a key argument about the quasi-judicial immunity doctrine that Churchill and his attorneys have challenged, arguing it threatens academic freedom and tenure at universities.
In addition to reviewing whether granting CU’s Board of Regents quasi-judicial immunity comports with federal law, the Supreme Court will consider whether CU violated Churchill’s First Amendment rights and whether Churchill can be given back his job as an ethnic studies professor — which attorney David Lane said Churchill still wants.
As reported by Clear The Bench Colorado at the end of May, Churchill’s attempts to portray the case as an issue of “academic freedom and tenure at universities” were undermined by the backing of many academic groups (including the American Council on Education, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the Association of American Universities) for the University of Colorado Board of Regents’ decision (and right) to fire Ward Churchill.
In the academic groups’ amicus brief filed with the Colorado Supreme Court supporting the University of Colorado’s position, the groups state that
the principles of academic freedom should result in support for the university’s position. “Because universities are the entities best suited to make decisions about their faculties, they are entitled to autonomy in adjudicating claims regarding academic integrity.”
The academic associations further argue that overturning the appeals court decision
would not only infringe on the institutional autonomy that is the cornerstone of academic freedom, but would chill universities’ incentive to provide robust internal processes for faculty misconduct proceedings.
Our View:
Free speech and academic freedom are important rights worthy of being defended, but Ward Churchill’s transparent attempt to extend his played-out “fifteen minutes of fame” and violate the rights of others (including forcing the University of Colorado – and by extension, Colorado taxpayers – to provide him a sheltered, comfortable livelihood) is, contrariwise, contemptible. The Colorado Supreme Court should not play the bully by forcing CU to re-hire this confirmed fraud and cheat.
Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.
However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.
Ward Churchill to argue before Colorado Supreme Court to force the University of Colorado to give him back a job
World-famous plagiarist and academic fraud (and faux Native-American) Ward Churchill is set to appear before the Colorado Supreme Court on June 7th in oral arguments designed to force the University of Colorado – which fired him for academic fraud – to re-hire him as a tenured professor. According to his lawyer, “Churchill is ready and willing to return to his $96,400-per-year job.”
Although Churchill (and his attorneys) attempt to portray the case as a “free-speech” issue, as the Denver Post reported earlier this week,
CU’s regents voted 8-1 to fire Churchill nearly five years ago after the university said he had committed repeated academic fraud in his scholarship.
As also noted in the Denver Post’s coverage:
The Colorado Supreme Court announced in 2011 that it would hear Churchill’s appeal, including a key argument about the quasi-judicial immunity doctrine that Churchill and his attorneys have challenged, arguing it threatens academic freedom and tenure at universities.
In addition to reviewing whether granting CU’s Board of Regents quasi-judicial immunity comports with federal law, the Supreme Court will consider whether CU violated Churchill’s First Amendment rights and whether Churchill can be given back his job as an ethnic studies professor — which attorney David Lane said Churchill still wants.
However, Churchill’s attempts to portray the case as an issue of “academic freedom and tenure at universities” are undermined by the backing of many academic groups (including the American Council on Education, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the Association of American Universities) for the University of Colorado’s decision (and right) to fire Ward Churchill.
In the academic groups’ amicus brief filed with the Colorado Supreme Court supporting the University of Colorado’s position, the groups state that
the principles of academic freedom should result in support for the university’s position. “Because universities are the entities best suited to make decisions about their faculties, they are entitled to autonomy in adjudicating claims regarding academic integrity.”
The academic associations further argue that overturning the appeals court decision
would not only infringe on the institutional autonomy that is the cornerstone of academic freedom, but would chill universities’ incentive to provide robust internal processes for faculty misconduct proceedings.
Our View:
Free speech and academic freedom are important rights worthy of being defended, but Ward Churchill’s transparent attempt to extend his played-out “fifteen minutes of fame” and violate the rights of others (including forcing the University of Colorado – and by extension, Colorado taxpayers – to provide him a sheltered, comfortable livelihood) is, contrariwise, contemptible. The Colorado Supreme Court should not play the bully by forcing CU to re-hire this confirmed fraud and cheat.
Clear The Bench Colorado will, with your support, continue to promote transparency and accountability in the Colorado judiciary, informing the public to increase awareness of the substantial public policy implications of an unrestrained activism and political agendas in the courts. We will continue to work to educate voters and provide information of relevance related to the judicial branch, and to provide useful and substantive evaluations of judicial performance.
However, we can’t do it alone – we need your continued support; via your comments (Sound Off!) and, yes, your contributions. Freedom isn’t free -nor is it always easy to be a Citizen, not a subject.
Ultimately, though – it’s worth the effort.