In an open letter to the University of Colorado Board of Regents released today, the ACLU and the ACLU of Colorado urged the Board to reject the recommendation of CU President Hank Brown to terminate Professor Ward Churchill. President Brown’s decision ran counter to the majority of the Appeals Panel of the Privilege and Tenure Committee, which concluded that dismissal was not warranted.

National ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero (of the ACLU) and Cathryn Hazouri, Executive Director of the ACLU of Colorado noted the highly charged political nature of the public uproar over Professor Churchill’s essay about the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. They stated that the “poisoned atmosphere in which this investigation was launched…[has] irretrievably tainted the process. The investigation of Professor Churchill’s scholarship cannot be separated from the indefensible lynch-mob furor that generated the initial calls for his termination.”

“The cure for unpopular speech is public debate,” says Hazouri, “not silencing a voice you don’t want to hear. Professor Churchill’s critics didn’t call for an investigation; they called for him to be fired. When those critics include the Governor and politicians with influence over the University budget, it’s impossible to conduct an impartial investigation.”

The letter warns that firing Professor Churchill over the results of an investigation triggered by his unpopular views which are clearly protected by the First Amendment creates a dangerous precedent when it comes to repressing academic freedom and chilling public debate.

--TEXT OF THE LETTER--

July 11, 2007

To the members of the University of Colorado Board of Regents:

Later this month, the Board of Regents will meet to consider a recommendation, made by University of Colorado President Hank Brown, that Professor Ward Churchill’s employment be terminated.

We write on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union—an organization long dedicated to preserving the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom—to urge you to reject this recommendation.

The investigation of Professor Churchill’s scholarship is the result of widespread publicity in early 2005 about certain unpopular views Professor Churchill expressed several years earlier in an essay about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Prominent public officials, including members of the legislature and the then-Governor of Colorado, quickly called for Professor Churchill’s termination. The Board of Regents called an emergency meeting, at which the Chancellor announced his plan for an immediate investigation of all of Professor Churchill’s writing and speeches to determine whether they provided any grounds for dismissal.

It is undisputed, however, that Professor Churchill’s views are protected by the First Amendment and cannot serve as a legal basis for any adverse employment action. Nevertheless, the University soon launched the investigation of Professor Churchill’s scholarship in an effort to find more defensible grounds for sanctioning him.

The investigative committee found six charges of research misconduct to be sustained. The Appeals Panel of the Privilege and Tenure Committee concluded that only three of those were valid. Only one member of the five-member investigative committee believed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction, and a majority of the appeals panel concluded that termination was not warranted. Despite these conclusions, the University President has recommended termination, thus urging the same result as the elected officials who publicly called for Professor Churchill’s termination in 2005. The current Governor of Colorado has now added his voice to those clamoring for Professor Churchill to be fired.

We believe the poisoned atmosphere in which this investigation was launched, and the circumstances under which it was initiated, have irretrievably tainted the process. The investigation of Professor Churchill’s scholarship cannot be separated from the indefensible lynch-mob furor that generated the initial calls for his termination. Firing Professor Churchill in these circumstances does not send a message about academic rigor and standards of professional integrity. On the contrary, it sends a warning to the academic community that politically unpopular dissenters speak out at their peril.

Accepting President Brown’s recommendation in these circumstances poses too great a risk that other members of the academic community will respond by choosing to silence themselves or temper the public expression of their views out of fear that they, too, will be subjected to detailed fishing expeditions and censure. Such a result not only undermines academic freedom, it also diminishes the range and breadth of public debate that is vital to a flourishing democracy. We urge you to reject President Brown’s recommendation.

Sincerely,

Anthony Romero
Cathryn Hazouri
Executive Director Executive Director
ACLU ACLU of Colorado 

more on Ward Churchill's case

For the third year in a row, the ACLU of Colorado's nominee for the national ACLU Youth Activist Scholarship has been selected to receive the $4,000 award. Established in 2000, the scholarship honors graduating seniors who have demonstrated a strong commitment to civil liberties and civil rights through some form of student activism.

This year we nominated Ryan Brown, a senior at the Denver School of the Arts, for her documentary on the life of former Colorado Governor Ralph Carr. Brown was researching the history of World War II when she came upon the story of Ralph Carr, one of the only western leaders to publicly speak against the internment of Japanese Americans, a stand that cost him his political career. Brown conducted interviews with men and women who had been forcefully resettled in internment camps.

Her work was so compelling it led the ACLU of Colorado to create a new annual award of our own: the Ralph L. Carr award for devotion to a significant contemporary issue. We wish her the best in her collegiate years and look forward to following her future activist projects.

Watch Ryan's award-winning documentary, "A Small Voice But a Strong Voice," about former Colorado governor Ralph L. Carr's stand against internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The film also won several awards including first place in the 2006 National History Day, History Channel Award of Excellence in Documentary Film and the Merit Award in video/film production, NFAA ARTS Recognition and Talent Search 2006-2007. The film was a finalist for Best Documentary in the 2006 Denver Academy Film Festival for Youth.

Read Ryan's personal essay about her experience researching and producing the documentary.

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court's decision will endanger women's health.

"Unfortunately, today's decision has placed politics above protecting women's health," said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF. "This ruling is a set back for all Americans who believe politicians should not legislate medical decision-making. The decision disregards the opinion of leading doctors and medical organizations that oppose the ban because it is harmful to women's health."

The Court ruled today on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act." The two cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country.

A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two cases. Today's Supreme Court decision requires that the ban be upheld in this case as well.

"Today's decision undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women's health must remain paramount," said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion."

Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.

Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to today's opinion: "Though today's opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of 'the rule of law' and the 'principles of stare decisis.'"

Today's cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. Our mission is to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women. Our members include health care professionals at clinics, doctors' offices, and hospitals, who together care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year. For more information, visit our website at www.prochoice.org.

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. For more information, visit: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights.