Chickens Come Home To Roost or The Ruling...

[Cancel 2018. 3]

too funny how the libs went all out to defend this guy....without knowing the facts

gee....i wonder why

 

[DamnYankee]

see, this is also the problem with conservatives, just like liberals. you'll toss the rule of law out like a damaged penny if it doesn't work the way you want it to.

The rule of law can be interpreted in many ways. Liberals interpret the Constitution as a living document and have bastardized it to the point that it is now meaningless to them. Its time to play by their rules instead of ours and defeat them.

 

[Annie]

i watched a documentary on this issue just the other day. what is it, factually, that this guy did to get terminated? because I can't find it.

from the above link:

`4. ...Misconduct concluded that Professor Churchill violated the University’s Administrative Policy Statement on Misconduct in Research and Authorship. Chancellor DiStefano informed Professor Churchill that his “pattern of serious, repeated and deliberate research misconduct fall below minimum standards of professional integrity expected of University faculty and warrants your dismissal from the University of Colorado.”

the justice goes on from there, stating all the responses and counter responses. He also cites case law on why the university was correct.

40. Quasi-judicial immunity applies when proceedings are “conducted by a trier of facts insulated by political influence.” Butz, 438 U.S. at 513. Horwitz, 822 F.2d at 1514. In this case, the Privilege and Tenure Hearings Panel of the Faculty Senate was the “trier of fact” that determined whether the grounds for dismissal had been demonstrated against Professor Churchill. That “trier of fact” unanimously determined
that Professor Churchill engaged in “conduct below the minimum standards of professional integrity,” which is one of the permissible grounds for dismissal.

After determining the board of regents were a quasi-judicial body and acted appropriately in that capacity, the court vacated the prior judgement of a nominal amount, ($1.00)

Then about Churchill's demand for reinstatement:

92. The University of Colorado has adopted rules of ethics that govern research. These rules, known as the Administrative Policy Statement on Misconduct in Research and Authorship, prohibit “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and other forms of misappropriation of ideas, or additional practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted in the research community for proposing, conducting or reporting
research.” Trial Exhibit 3(B).

93. Initially, a faculty body known as the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct: (1) authorized an investigation of the allegations of research
misconduct against Professor Churchill; (2) reviewed the results of the investigation; (3) determined that he engaged in multiple acts of research misconduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification; and (4)recommended his dismissal to the Chancellor. Trial Exhibit 1(K).

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Again you are wrong. The jury didn't rule that he didn't plagiarize, he was not on trial for plagiarism, the jury wasn't ruling on whether he plagiarized. That was not in question. The jury ruled that the plagiarism was rooted out because of the use of his speech. That without the article none of this would have been found out and therefore it was his speech that caused his firing.

From the Judge's order:



He was guilty of the research misconduct, the board ruled unanimously on it. The Jury only ruled that the Regents did not prove they would have fired him even if he had never written the essay.

sounds like this should have happened to This guy.

 

[Topspin]

I think this is the douchebag that said 911 victims deserved it.
He deserves all the asswhoppins coming his way.

 

[Bonestorm]

from the above link:



the justice goes on from there, stating all the responses and counter responses. He also cites case law on why the university was correct.



After determining the board of regents were a quasi-judicial body and acted appropriately in that capacity, the court vacated the prior judgement of a nominal amount, ($1.00)

Then about Churchill's demand for reinstatement:

Selectively quoting from the opinion I see.

The bottom line is that the jury found that the University violated Churchill's civil rights by firing him based on the exercise of his 1st Amendment rights and the found that it doesn't matter because the University is immune from such claims.

I'm no fan of Churchill, but it seems to me that it's an odd ruling for the Court to find that a public university can fire tenured professors based for saying things the university doesn't like and the professors have zero recourse. Basically, public universities can fire professors based on first amendment protected speech and can do so with impunity.

If this gets appealed, I expect it to be overturned. It really doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

 

[Annie]

Selectively quoting from the opinion I see.

The bottom line is that the jury found that the University violated Churchill's civil rights by firing him based on the exercise of his 1st Amendment rights and the found that it doesn't matter because the University is immune from such claims.

I'm no fan of Churchill, but it seems to me that it's an odd ruling for the Court to find that a public university can fire tenured professors based for saying things the university doesn't like and the professors have zero recourse. Basically, public universities can fire professors based on first amendment protected speech and can do so with impunity.

If this gets appealed, I expect it to be overturned. It really doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

Why don't you just go copy & paste the whole ruling? Oh yeah, I was looking for what had been questioned, "What was he charged with?" That is why I was "selective".

 

[Damocles]

Why don't you just go copy & paste the whole ruling? Oh yeah, I was looking for what had been questioned, "What was he charged with?" That is why I was "selective".

He was the Plaintiff in a lawsuit, he was not charged with anything.

The assumption is the Jury found that he didn't plagiarize, but that was not in question and has nothing to do with the Jury findings. The agreement was to argue the matter of law after the Jury portion of the trial.

I don't believe that this will be overturned at appeal, the Judge was very thorough in his explanations.

 

[Annie]

He was the Plaintiff in a lawsuit, he was not charged with anything.

The assumption is the Jury found that he didn't plagiarize, but that was not in question and has nothing to do with the Jury findings. The agreement was to argue the matter of law after the Jury portion of the trial.

I don't believe that this will be overturned at appeal, the Judge was very thorough in his explanations.

What the judge was mentioned regarding charges was what the board of regents eventually were addressing and whether they had the power to act as they did.

As the justice made clear, plagiarism was not the sole issue as the outcome made clear. I agree with you regarding any appeal.

 

[Bonestorm]

He was the Plaintiff in a lawsuit, he was not charged with anything.

The assumption is the Jury found that he didn't plagiarize, but that was not in question and has nothing to do with the Jury findings. The agreement was to argue the matter of law after the Jury portion of the trial.

I don't believe that this will be overturned at appeal, the Judge was very thorough in his explanations.

Thorough doesn't mean correct.

You don't think it odd that a public university can fire tenured professors for exercising their free speech rights and the professors have no recourse?

 

[Damocles]

Thorough doesn't mean correct.

You don't think it odd that a public university can fire tenured professors for exercising their free speech rights and the professors have no recourse?

I think that if he were fired for solely that he would have had more than recourse, he'd be working there today. I think that if you actually read the judge's order you would come to a different conclusion.

But really it doesn't matter. Factually they found that had there not been outcry from his essay that his research misconduct would not have been found.

I find it ridiculous that somebody could protect themselves from being a crappy employee just by saying something outrageous. And again, none of this is my personal opinion. I would have recommended suspension and demotion (like 3 out of the 5 on the board of research misconduct), not firing.

 

[Bonestorm]

I think that if he were fired for solely that he would have had more than recourse, he'd be working there today. I think that if you actually read the judge's order you would come to a different conclusion.

But really it doesn't matter. Factually they found that had there not been outcry from his essay that his research misconduct would not have been found.

I find it ridiculous that somebody could protect themselves from being a crappy employee just by saying something outrageous. And again, none of this is my personal opinion. I would have recommended suspension and demotion (like 3 out of the 5 on the board of research misconduct), not firing.

No, I read (most of) the opinion. I just don't buy the immunity claim.

The jury found he would not have been fired if not for his protected speech. And it isn't as though a crappy employee can be protected by saying something outrageous. The principle should be that the university can't fire tenured professors because it doesn't like what they say. But, apparently, universities can do that.