David Lei | Professing beliefs

When I first heard about Ward Churchill's dismissal from the University of Colorado, it was hard to suppress my glee.

Churchill is considered a propagandist for extremely liberal viewpoints. In 2006, a committee of the professor's peers found him guilty of serious academic misconduct. The University of Colorado fired him on those grounds a year later.

But Churchill promptly sued and demanded to be reinstated as a professor, arguing that he was actually fired over the backlash from one of his most controversial essays, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."

The essay, published shortly after 9/11, referred to the victims of terrorist attacks as "little Eichmanns." It argued that the men and women who died in the World Trade Center had served the interests of American imperialism and should not be pitied.

As the facts emerged, it was obvious that Churchill had indeed lost his job on a specious pretense. A jury recently decided the trial in his favor, and a judge in the case will soon decide whether Churchill should have his job back or, instead, receive his old salary for some period of time.

While I am disinclined to, I reluctantly agree with the jury's decision. That said, I hope the judge will reject Churchill's demand to be reinstated as a professor.

Were it not for the uncertainty surrounding his academic conduct, we could say that Churchill's incendiary views hold some measure of academic merit. And although federal law doesn't prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their political beliefs or affiliation, we should expect our universities to function as forums for the free and open expression of ideas.

According to reporting by The Chronicle of Higher Education, Churchill's fellow faculty members discovered fabrication, plagiarism and self-citing, among other problems, in his research - the academic misconduct for which he was supposedly fired. But this investigation occurred only after and was clearly motivated by the controversy surrounding his 9/11 paper.

The University of Colorado's claim for why it sent Churchill away on the basis of his academic misconduct is a lie. The school did not have clear standards or expectations for the professionalism of its professors to begin with.

Churchill has been no stranger to controversy - in fact, he's attracted attention in academic circles for his clashes with controversial conservative David Horowitz. Horowitz, who will be on campus this Wednesday to promote his new book, has championed a movement against the politicization of college classrooms.

Churchill and Horowitz have been archrivals for years, with the latter accusing the former of inappropriately indoctrinating his students. Horowitz has assailed Churchill's perspective on the role teachers ought play in the classroom, arguing that the education system should teach students how to think rather than what to think.

Surely, he of all people would lament Churchill's possible reinstatement to the University of Colorado's faculty?

Much to my surprise, however, Horowitz has actually offered Churchill his support. "I defended Churchill. You can't fire an employee from a state university because of his political beliefs," he told me in a telephone interview. In fact, he thinks Churchill should have his old job back.

The irony of this should not be lost on anyone.

Horowitz believes that firing Churchill for his academic misconduct would have been perfectly fair if that were actually the case. But not for his views, no matter how incendiary they are.

He has published a so-called "Academic Bill of Rights," the first principle of which says, "No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs."

I think the Academic Bill of Rights, which also encourages protection of students' political beliefs, makes a lot of sense. That said, I strongly disagree with the notion that Churchill should be reinstated. Doing so would vindicate his flawed research and might immunize him from future scrutiny. More importantly, it would send the wrong message about the standards to which university professors - our intellectual leaders - should be held.

David Lei is a Wharton junior from Brooklyn, N.Y. He is the former Executive Editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian and the executive director of the College Republicans. The Lei-bertarian appears on Mondays. His email address is lei@dailypennsylvanian.com.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.