The Try-Works

As you know, dear reader, Ward Churchill’s appeal to the Privilege and Tenure Committee, the final result of due process at the University of Colorado, resulted in a recommendation that Churchill not be fired — the committee proposing a one year suspension instead.

And, as you also know, CU President Hank Brown simply ignored due process, firing Ward Churchill anyway based on the overturned recommendation of the initial Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. Not that you should be surprised. After all, firing Ward Churchill was part of why Hank Brown was hired in the first place.

Just as the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct was convened to recommend that firing.

Just as the chair of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct was hand-picked to ensure that firing happened.

See, I’ve long suspected said committee’s chair, Mimi Wesson, of being, shall we say, less than impartial vis-a-vis Professor Churchill. And now I can call that suspicion a flat-out fact.

Following are excerpts from the first of two emails penned by Mimi Wesson which have been passed along to me by an anonymous tipster. This one was sent by Ms. Wesson on February 28th of 2005. Before there was a Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. Before there was even an investigation into Churchill’s work.

The first excerpt has to do with Ms. Wesson’s general impression of Ward Churchill’s personality.

I confess to being somewhat mystified by the variety of people this unpleasant (to say the least) individual has been able to enlist to defend him. I know people say it’s the principle, but we aren’t all out there defending Bob Guccione’s first amendment rights, though God knows he has them. I thought that us middle-aged feminists, at least, had learned not to all fall into that trap.

On a side note, Ms. Wesson had never met Ward Churchill at this point. So one has to wonder how she knew he was “unpleasant (to say the least)”.

But, of course, that ain’t the real question. The real question is how the hell did someone openly expressing these kinds of sentiments about Churchill get made chair of a supposedly objective committee tasked with investigating Churchill.

Anyone?

And, another good question is, given her opinion of his personality, what do you think she thinks of his guilt or innocence?

Luckily, she doesn’t leave us in suspense long.

. . . the rallying around Churchill reminds me unhappily of the rallying around OJ Simpson and Bill Clinton and now Michael Jackson and other charismatic male celebrity wrongdoers (well, okay, I don’t really know that Jackson is a wrongdoer) — the tortured defenses (the cops planted the blood, “it depends on what you mean by sex”), the claim that we have to defend the principle, the idea that if “they” get him, then “they” will come to get you next.

My favorite’s her caveat about Michael Jackson, that she’s “doesn’t really know” if he’s a wrongdoer. Y’know, because, she’s not conflicted at all about Ward Churchill’s guilt. He’s right there with OJ Simpson.

Do you think it’s too much to suggest that comparing Ward Churchill to the most notorious alleged murderer of the last fifty years and a suspected pedophile might preclude one from sitting as chair of a committee charged with objectively investigating him?

Just maybe?

And do bear in mind, this is before she’s heard a single shred of evidence against Ward Churchill. As I said above, this is before there was even an investigation.

Given the level of ethics exhibited here, I’m wondering if all those she convicted as a prosecutor might be within their rights to start filing appeals.

But the real kicker comes elsewhere in the email. Remember, this was written in February of 2005, over a year before the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct released its report on Churchill.

As you know, an unlawful arrest doesn’t immunize the person arrested from responsibility for his crimes. Churchill’s writing are all out there in the public sphere for consumption, as all scholarship has to be; it’s not as though someone violated his right to privacy by taking a look to see what was there. I can’t see a workable moral principle in the idea that any discovery of academic misconduct is immune from punishment if we can discern something discriminatory or punitive in the motives of the ones who went looking. If a cop takes offense at my bumper sticker and decides to follow me around until he sees me engage in a drug transaction in a public place, I can still be convicted, can’t I?

Sound familiar?

It should.

It’s an argument she repeats, almost verbatim, in the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct’s final report.

To use an analogy, a motorist who is stopped and ticketed for speeding because the police officer was offended by the contents of her bumper sticker, and who otherwise would have been sent away with a warning, is still guilty of speeding, even if the officer’s motive for punishing the speeder was the offense taken to the speeder’s exercise of her right to free speech. No court would consider the improper motive of the police officer to constitute a defense to speeding, however protected by legal free speech guarantees the contents of the bumper sticker might be.

Keep reading.

It’s a beaut, ain’t it? Mimi Wesson has not only decided Ward Churchill’s existential unpleasantness (“to say the least”) and affirmed his guilt, she’s already started to formulate the arguments to be used against him.

Objective? Impartial?

You decide.

One last gem for you, dear reader: I have it from my anonymous tipster that Ms. Wesson demanded to be chair of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct when it was convened.

I don’t think you have to spend too much energy wondering why.

She’d already drafted their conclusion.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that CU’s own rules make it pretty clear that Mimi Wesson should never have even been on the committee, let alone acting as chair. At least if the university had any interest in objectivity.

The Standing Committee shall appoint an investigating committee charged with conducting a thorough, informed and unbiased investigation of the allegations of misconduct.

1. In consultation with the appropriate dean or vice chancellor, the Standing Committee shall appoint an ad hoc committee of three to five members, including a chair, herein referred to as the investigating committee.

2. Investigating committee members may be selected from inside or outside the University, excluding members of the Standing Committee. Attention in selection should be paid to (1) avoiding conflicts of interest and (2) including appropriate research expertise within the committee to evaluate the allegation(s) under consideration.

3. The Standing Committee shall consult with the respondent and complainant to ensure that investigating committee members do not have a bias or conflict of interest in considering the case. If a member’s impartiality is questioned, the Standing Committee may replace that member.

4. The chair of the Standing Committee shall meet with the Investigative Committee, prior to the initiation of the investigation, to discuss the procedures for the investigation phase, described in section VI. of this document.

Those rules ought to look familiar to anyone following the case, of course. The anti-Churchill bloc was citing the same rules all over the fucking place when they were in the business of running scholars off the committee whom they deemed as pro-Churchill.

But, we should pause. Granted, we have now have irrefutable evidence that Mimi Wesson was biased at the outset. However, that doesn’t mean she didn’t tap into some inner reservoir of decency and fair play, right? Surely there’s a chance she might’ve simply put her biases aside and commenced with the work at hand?

But no, no, not in this case. See, the second email I have from Ms. Wesson was written after she’d become chair of the committee. And I’d like to dedicate it to all you who’ve scoffed at the idea that those pillars of academic integrity — Mimi Wesson at their head, of course — would deign to allow public and financial influences to taint their judgment.

This one was sent by Mimi Wesson to Robert Clinton, who was serving under her on the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct. She’s expressing her sense of panic that they won’t be able to tidy the whole Ward Churchill problem up expediently.

Just so you know why I have a growing sense of panic, however, I’m forwarding you the message below — nothing special about it, it’s just today’s, but it’s one of many that I get, all suggesting that the delay represents an effort by CU to “sweep this thing under the rug” . . . When you explained that you would become unavailable, in early May, for the remainder of the month, I really felt my spirits sink. We just have to finish this thing before then. I hope we might be able to anyway, without meeting on the 21st, but frankly I am not sure. I do not expect Prof. Churchill to be all that cooperative about securing his witnesses in a timely way (although we have told him he has to) — dragging this out is somewhat to his advantage. Meanwhile the University and all who care about it have their eyes on us.

“A growing sense of panic”, you say? That’s interesting. Why would one panic about about allowing due process to run its course?

Perhaps we should take a look at the email which Mimi Wesson was kind enough to forward Mr. Clinton.

To all:

As parents of 2 children @ CU Boulder it is disgusting to see the University continue to drag out the Churchill process and to incredibly damage it’s reputation. WHY IS THERE NO SENSE OF URGENCY WHEN THIS IS KILLING CU’s REPUTATION AND PROBABLY DONATIONS, ETC….It hurts all connected with CU. There’s many clear violations that newspapers, etc have clearly documented.

I had hoped that Hank Brown would have helped to keep this process moving along.

I doubt our last child will be allowed to attend CU Boulder.

Anyone want to argue that this ain’t an attempt to influence Robert Williams’ opinion on the case? The influence behind the statement that “the University and all who care about it have their eyes on us” seems pretty clear.

After all, the email’s author — who presumably constitutes Ms. Wesson’s “all who care about it” demographic — ain’t just demanding the process come to a conclusion.

He’s demanding Ward Churchill be fired.

The outcome of termination was never in doubt.  Never.  As Ms. Wesson put it so eloquently: “We just have to finish this thing.”

Or does anyone have a better reason why she’d be forwarding emails demanding Ward Churchill’s head to other members of the committee as an indication of the matter’s urgency?

Given the “panic” she’s enduring at just having to read an email or two, I can only imagine the kind of cold sweats she might undergo were she to actually envision anything besides a recommendation of termination.

Luckily for her, I guess, that was never an option.