Churchill Buyout Derailed

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by no1tovote4, Mar 11, 2005.

  1. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    I get into my car, ready to go home. What do I hear on our local talk radio station? Some of the best news I have heard in some time about CU. The Buyout that was being "negotiated" with Churchill and his attorney has been stopped.

    Mostly because of the allegations of Plagiarism that came out the same day as the news of the buyout (today).

    Plagiarism Story

    This coupled with a local movement sponsored by two on air personalities that are also attorneys, Caplis and Silverman. They set up a pledge drive to pay the attorneys fees for whichever attorneys CU and each of the Regents decided to hire to protect them from lawsuits if they fire Churchill, this took away their excuse that a legal battle would cost too much. (There are also about 15 different excellent attorneys who have said they would do the work Pro Bono, we weren't supposed to hear about that).

    Here is their website (it also has a ton of information about churchill)

    Let's hope this lights a fire under CUs ass, that this is the final straw. Let's hope they simply do the right thing now and either find there is no reason to fire the "professor" and back him, or start the ball rolling to fire him with cause.
     
  2. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    I have never understood why CU couldn't fire Churchill. He is an EMPLOYEE, for crissakes, and there's substantial evidence that he failed the test!

    In my state you do not have a RIGHT to a job. An employer can fire you if they don't like the way you dress/talk/act/look, etc., so you had better be on your best behavior at all times. I don't mean to imply that that's how the employers in my state conduct themselves, but they have the right to get rid of you quite easily if they want to.

    Our famous ex-basketball coach tried to sue the state over his firing, but he didn't succeed. Only made a greater ass out of himself then he already was. The NCAA was so impressed by the (justified) firing that they rewarded our former university president by hiring him to head up their organization. (Just my take on things. :p: ) The ex-president of CU should have taken notice and followed suit. Lop off the excess baggage before things get too complicated, which is what happened in our state.
     
  3. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    They are contractually bound to follow specific paths in order to fire Tenured Professors. Since this man was so easily given tenure, they have to jump through all the loops in order to fire him. Even if the three-person panel decided to fire him (no gaurantee, two of the three are people that were actually responsible for hiring him and giving him glowing revues even though he was cheating them right under their noses), it would still take 2 years about to go through all the other stuff that is needed to fire the good "professor".

    In order to fire him immediately and without that particular rigamarole he would have to have broken a criminal law. So far the closest he has come is plagiarism, and that is a civil law dealt with through lawsuits not jail time. If they can prove that he actually threatened the actual Professor he stole the intellectual property of, then they could fire him without any of the "hearings" that will be necessary to fire him otherwise.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Since he misrepresented himself as a Native American and if the plagarism charge if founded, then no buyout, which is why CU pulled back. Fire him for cause.
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    The thing of it is, there was plagiarism allegations from Professors in the US when they found and peer-reviewed his work after it was published. The knowledge that he is not Native American is also been around even while they were "negotiating" the buyout. I think they were willing to do anything to make this go away, but then new allegations surfaced at the same time as their trial balloon and they realized they jumped the gun. Especially if it can be proven he threatened the Canadian Professor when the original charges of plagiarism came to light. It shouldn't be hard to get records of calls made by Churchill at that time, it could be he might end in prison instead of just being fired.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. He also ripped off some artist. Forgot where, but seems he basically tried to sell it as original Indian art years ago.

    Also there was some question about his interview regarding Vietnam. Looks like another bit of plagarism, from a book he contributed to.
     
  7. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    He claimed he was a point man for a SF unit. However his only training in the military was as a projectionist (you know slideshows, movies, etc). I guess he probably used that training in order to thieve the art.

    One piece it has been proven he stole was from work that is no longer under copyright and therefore was not a violation of law at all, the other is still under copyright and therefore is a violation of Federal Civil laws and he can be sued, but it still wouldn't be enough to fire him without the two years of loops to jump through. He has to violate some criminal law for that to happen.
     
  8. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    Update ***

    The news today is that 3 hours before the leak of the Grand Jury documents to the press CU signed Strom Thurman's old PR guy in Virginia and penned a deal for damage control.

    This University seems to always be a day late and a dollar short. Amazingly, they have a Communications Department that they tout to be some of the best in the nation yet hired outside the University in Virginia.

    The University has put forward a new date for the report on Churchill to be released, March 28th. I do not trust these people and feel that they want to wait so that it doesn't seem so new that we have found out about the newest allegations of Plagiarism and people will not feel directly violated when they recommend to keep Churchill after minimal punishment of Censure. These people seem to have no connection to the reality of their position and that their actions here could save the University for coming years or harm it almost permanently.
     

Share This Page