A new kind of hung jury

Due to their influence on young people and status in the community, college professors tend to find their First Amendment rights under scrutiny more often than most people.

No one seems to care whether some guy on the street blabbers on about conspiracy theories or makes racist remarks, but if that person is involved in shaping young minds, the uproar is swift and clamorous. Such was the case with Ward Churchill, formerly of the University of Colorado, and his comments slighting the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Churchill was fired from the university due to academic misconduct, but he filed a lawsuit claiming the real reason for his firing was his controversial 9/11 essay. The jury ruled in favor of Churchill but awarded him only $1 in damages.  While the judge could require that the university rehire Churchill, the situation could be left as it is. And what exactly has been accomplished?

The case for academic misconduct seemed pretty strong. University of Colorado President Bruce D. Benson claims “21 of Ward Churchill’s faculty peers ... found he engaged in deliberate and repeated plagiarism, falsification and fabrication.”

Apparently, the jury was not convinced. But if Churchill was illegally fired, how is a buck in damages going to help?

Perhaps it could be seen as a win-win situation: Churchill saves his reputation, and the university doesn’t suffer any financial setback.

We say it’s more of a lose-lose. Radical professors are nothing new, and similar situations are bound to crop up again. It is a complicated situation drawing on issues relating not only to the Constitution, but to the function and purpose of the academy in American society.

Churchill’s case is an example of the often blurry line between unpopular opinion and shoddy scholarship, but the way it turned out didn’t really teach us anything new.

What could have set a useful precedent – either way – in how these cases are handled has turned out to largely be a waste of time.