Saturday, May 09, 2009

Hank Brown on the WC case

Very briefly, in an "innerview" in the Colorado Statesman:
CS: Were you surprised by the Ward Churchill decision?

HB: I was. There was no question in my mind that the reason for his dismissal was his plagiarism and falsification (of his resumé). Throughout the process, which took two years, he was the only one who ever brought up 9/11. No one at the university even mentioned it.
Uhhhhh . . .
And you know faculty committees. They would be the least likely of any human beings on the face of the Earth to discipline somebody for (expressing) what they thought. There simply isn’t anybody on any of the committees that thinks that way.
In fact, the committee bent itself like a (soft) pretzel trying to treat Chutch "fairly." A question unasked (in a long line of them): Why the hell did they keep Mimi Wesson on the investigating committee, let alone as its chairwoman? Two committee members resigned when their pro-Churchill comments were unearthed (by JWP, of course--I again salute his indefatigabilty); why wasn't Wesson strongly encouraged to do likewise after her anti-chutch remarks were leaked? Could they not have known that David Lane would hammer on it (The "Wesson Committee"; "O.J., M.J. and Billy")?
So, yeah, I was surprised and disappointed.

CS: It wasn’t a total victory either way.

HB: I think the fact it was just an award for $1 shows that the jury had some concerns, too. And it’s still too early to tell whether they’ll force him to come back. I think it’s very much up in the air.
Update: By the way, did anyone ever look into who exactly leaked Mimi's memo?

No comments: