Ward Churchill - Research Misconduct Investigation

Research Misconduct Investigation

The controversy attracted increased academic attention to Churchill's research, which had already been criticized by the legal scholar John LaVelle and historian Guenter Lewy. Additional critics were the sociologist Thomas Brown, who had been preparing an article on Churchill's work, and the historians R.G. Robertson and Russell Thornton, who claimed that Churchill had misrepresented their work. In 2005, University of Colorado at Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct.

On May 16, 2006 the University released their findings; the Investigative Committee agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct", including falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. The faculty committees at Colorado University unanimously found Churchill guilty of fabrication and falsification in two of his works that mentioned smallpox. The committee was divided on the appropriate level of sanctions. The Standing Committee on Research Misconduct accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee but also disagreed on what sanctions should be imposed. Churchill's appeal against his proposed dismissal was considered by a panel of the University's Privilege and Tenure Committee, which found that two of the seven findings of misconduct did not constitute dismissible offences. Three members recommended that the penalty should be demotion and one year's suspension without pay, while two favored dismissal.

On July 24, 2007, the University regents voted seven to two to uphold all seven of the findings of research misconduct, overruling the recommendation of Privilege and Tenure panel that two be dismissed. By a vote of eight to one, the regents determined to fire Churchill.

The next day, Churchill filed a lawsuit in state court claiming that the firing was retribution for his expressing politically unpopular views. The jury in Churchill's suit for reinstatement weighed the university's claims of academic misconduct per jury instructions it received in the case. As Stanley Fish said, "It was the jury’s task to determine whether Churchill’s dismissal would have occurred independently of the adverse political response to his constitutionally protected statements." The jury found that the alleged misconduct would not have led to Churchill's firing and rejected the university's academic misconduct claim as the grounds for dismissal. On April 1, 2009, a Colorado jury found that Churchill had been wrongly fired, and awarded $1 in damages. As one of the jurors said later in a press interview, "it wasn't a slap in his face or anything like that when we didn't give him any money. It's just that David Lane kept saying this wasn't about the money, and in the end, we took his word for that." Churchill's counsel asked Chief Judge Larry J. Naves of the Denver District Court to order reinstatement in light of the verdict.

On July 7, 2009, Judge Naves found that the defendants (university) were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as a matter of law, vacated the jury verdict and determined that the University did not owe Churchill any financial compensation. Naves denied Churchill's request for reinstatement at CU.

Churchill appealed both decisions. On November 24, 2010, a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. In February 2011, Churchill filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Colorado Supreme Court. In late May 2011, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear his case. Court records indicate that oral arguments began June 7, 2012. On September 10, 2012, the court ruled that the University's regents had "quasi-judicial immunity", upholding the earlier decision by a lower court. Churchill plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.