The University of Colorado won their appeal at the Colorado Supreme Court this week which means that the firing of Ward Churchill, the male half of that American Indian academic comedy routine know as Churchill and Warren, has been upheld. Churchill was fired back in 2007 by the University after an investigation into his ‘research’ showed patterns of plagiarism and fabrication.
Formerly a Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, this sham of a shaman would parade around campus dressed in buckskins, claiming to be a various mix of Indian American vintages that seemed to shift and change depending on his audience. He invented other trendy little fictions about his background such as having been an Army Ranger and a paratrooper during the Vietnam War. He also claimed that he taught bomb-making to the radicals in the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers’ jolly little terrorist group.
Despite possessing no doctorate degree, this progressive phony was granted tenure by the university in 1991. I’m sure the Board of Regents were all aglow at the prospect of having an American Indian affirmative action figure with a pseudo-radical past on the payroll. But by the early 21st century, the university must have been feeling they’d been had, royally had.
Ward Churchill is best known for his 9/11 essay where he depicted victims of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center as “little Eichmanns”. And of course, that made him a darling of the Democrat crowd.
But sometimes fate catches up to these arrogant fakirs, and on September 10, 2012, destiny surely had its day.
Ward Churchill’s attorney plans to appeal the fired professor’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court after the state’s high court ruled Monday in favor of the University of Colorado.
But the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court would take Churchill’s case is small, according to CU law professor, Melissa Hart, a constitutional scholar.
The U.S. Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions every year and chooses to hear about 80 to 100 cases, stated Hart. Churchill’s odds become even lower, she said, because the constitutional issue raised by his case doesn’t represent an inconsistent interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and isn’t important in terms of the broader interpretation of the Constitution.