Finally, a Republican-inspired headline in Colorado I can like! "CU slashes jobs, salaries," The Denver Post screamed Saturday.
The headline was inspired by University of Colorado President Bruce Benson, a Republican. Benson, anticipating like a good businessman should the funding shortfalls CU will face if the state's financial problems with higher education continue, announced budget cuts that will be inevitable once federal stimulus dollars finally get used up.
It's no shame to anticipate the worst of times when a business budgets for its future; and even though public education is a liberal and Democratic cause, the value of having a loyal opposition can be seen in Benson's businesslike attention to CU's money problems.
Now, if Benson holds true to Gov. Bill Ritter's predecessor's philosophy as governor, and maintains as low a tuition for in-state CU students as possible, Benson will have performed well in the footsteps of Bill Owens; and Colorado will be glad to thank both of them for their foresight.
This, perhaps, is the first time I can adequately explain my vote to endorse Bob Beauprez for governor over Bill Ritter way back when I was editor of ColoradoBiz magazine.
I thought then, and still think now, that Beauprez then was more qualified to be governor than Ritter, although I have to admit Gov. Ritter has done as good a job as anyone has a right to expect from a rather unexciting politician since his election.
Benson's budget cuts prove, as Beauprez did back during the 2006 race for chief executive of Colorado, that Republican-inspired frugality can be a good thing, even if Republican anti-tax philosophy is misguided -- no, ... make that insane.
Ritter signed a $17.9 billion budget bill on Friday, and, during the legislative session, did a good job negotiating toward a reasonable way to finance state government during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. "Just as families and businesses all across Colorado are doing, we made some very tough choices," Ritter was quoted by The Post as saying when he signed the legislation.
Making hard decisions is what Benson is doing as well. His actions may have some political side effects and overtones, but they also represent effective leadership in the face of dire circumstances, circumstances Ritter had promised business he would fix during his term.
Colorado higher education deserves a permanent fix of its money problems. So do Colorado college students.
"There's always next year" is no longer a face-saving slogan that can be used by the Denver Broncos or the Denver Nuggets. It seems it will always remain words to be invoked by a state lawmaker.
With the signing of the budget bill, however, next year is already here.
And once again voters may take to the polls to fix public higher education's problems in Colorado before elected officials gather up the gumption to do it themselves.
At least Bruce Benson is looking ahead.
As The Post put it: Benson couldn't "wait and hope everything will turn out OK."
Colorado's elected officials ought to follow his example.
Showing posts with label Bruce Benson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bruce Benson. Show all posts
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Ward Churchill: Free speech trumps political backlash
Ward Churchill's victory in a Denver District Court Thursday not only represents another victory for the First Amendment, but a victory for all the people of Colorado.
And you can thank the jury for that.
So far, none of the jurors have explained their verdict which ruled Churchill's rights to free speech were violated by the University of Colorado at Boulder, which fired him. The jury awarded the former CU professor only $1 in damages, putting enough of a devaluing influence on the decision that attorney Scott Robinson wrote in The Denver Post:
"Free speech triumphs. But at least when it comes to professor Ward Churchill, it isn't worth that much."
Shame on Robinson.
As an attorney, Robinson knows, as so many people at CU knew, that free speech is worth every penny we spend on it because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that without it the republic would not survive.
Which is why the $1 Churchill won is not without significance.
I am currently reading (finally) Anthony Lewis' 1991 book, "Make No Law," about the New York Times v. Sullivan decision which gave the press and the citizens of the United States secure freedom to say and write what they like about public officials, unless they know what they say is wrong when they deliberately say it anyway.
Again, since the jury's not talking, you have to read into their verdict what you will (and be perfectly happy interpreting it whatever way you like since your right to do so is guaranteed by the First Amendment), and even write about it when your interpretation is all wet.
What I see in the jury's decision is a strong endorsement of free speech in the face of dire consequences from public officials, and yet a concern for Colorado's leading public university and it's money problems. The jury knew CU couldn't afford to pay Churchill a large damage claim for violating his civil rights, and yet, perhaps, also knew the state should be able to afford attorney fees since it was a former governor, a former senator in Hank Brown, the former CU president, and a former Republican Party chairman and candidate for governor, who forced the state into court to defend its woeful decision to fire Churchill in the first place.
Make no mistake: All these people knew the financial consequences to the state for trying to defend the university for making constitutional infringements on the civil rights of one of its employees, and yet they took no heed of the people of Colorado's financial plight, especially regarding one of its strapped institutions of higher education. They all had a political point to make, and damit, cost or no cost, they were going to make it.
Former Gov. Bill Owens remarked post verdict: "I think the $1 in damages accurately reflects the jury's appreciation for Ward Churchill's warm and endearing personality."
I'll always defend the old governor's right to say such a silly thing, but the people of Colorado, who will pay anywhere from a half million to a whole million in legal fees for an attempt to keep someone else from exercising the same right, ought to take Owens to task for having provoked the whole legal fiasco in the first place. Perhaps they should ask him to pay the fees!
Bruce Benson's comment is just as ridiculous considering the legal advice available to him. He said CU administrators -- he is current CU president and was once a candidate for governor and state Republican Party chair -- "strongly disagree" with the jury's decision and:
"It doesn't change the fact that more than 20 of Ward Churchill's faculty peers on three separate panels unanimously found he engaged in deliberate and repeated plagiarism, falsification and fabrication that fall below the minimum standards of professional conduct."
Neither, however, does any of that change the fact that Churchill has a right to say what he likes even when what he says is wrong, especially when he is speaking about government.
Benson knows that; and his attorneys at CU certainly knew that. Former Gov. Bill Owens should have known it, too, when he called on CU to fire Churchill.
You can forgive Owens, though, for not remembering it now. Now, judging from his statement, Owens believes First Amendment rights should be adjudicated on the basis of one's personality rather than on one's constitutional freedoms.
And you can thank the jury for that.
So far, none of the jurors have explained their verdict which ruled Churchill's rights to free speech were violated by the University of Colorado at Boulder, which fired him. The jury awarded the former CU professor only $1 in damages, putting enough of a devaluing influence on the decision that attorney Scott Robinson wrote in The Denver Post:
"Free speech triumphs. But at least when it comes to professor Ward Churchill, it isn't worth that much."
Shame on Robinson.
As an attorney, Robinson knows, as so many people at CU knew, that free speech is worth every penny we spend on it because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that without it the republic would not survive.
Which is why the $1 Churchill won is not without significance.
I am currently reading (finally) Anthony Lewis' 1991 book, "Make No Law," about the New York Times v. Sullivan decision which gave the press and the citizens of the United States secure freedom to say and write what they like about public officials, unless they know what they say is wrong when they deliberately say it anyway.
Again, since the jury's not talking, you have to read into their verdict what you will (and be perfectly happy interpreting it whatever way you like since your right to do so is guaranteed by the First Amendment), and even write about it when your interpretation is all wet.
What I see in the jury's decision is a strong endorsement of free speech in the face of dire consequences from public officials, and yet a concern for Colorado's leading public university and it's money problems. The jury knew CU couldn't afford to pay Churchill a large damage claim for violating his civil rights, and yet, perhaps, also knew the state should be able to afford attorney fees since it was a former governor, a former senator in Hank Brown, the former CU president, and a former Republican Party chairman and candidate for governor, who forced the state into court to defend its woeful decision to fire Churchill in the first place.
Make no mistake: All these people knew the financial consequences to the state for trying to defend the university for making constitutional infringements on the civil rights of one of its employees, and yet they took no heed of the people of Colorado's financial plight, especially regarding one of its strapped institutions of higher education. They all had a political point to make, and damit, cost or no cost, they were going to make it.
Former Gov. Bill Owens remarked post verdict: "I think the $1 in damages accurately reflects the jury's appreciation for Ward Churchill's warm and endearing personality."
I'll always defend the old governor's right to say such a silly thing, but the people of Colorado, who will pay anywhere from a half million to a whole million in legal fees for an attempt to keep someone else from exercising the same right, ought to take Owens to task for having provoked the whole legal fiasco in the first place. Perhaps they should ask him to pay the fees!
Bruce Benson's comment is just as ridiculous considering the legal advice available to him. He said CU administrators -- he is current CU president and was once a candidate for governor and state Republican Party chair -- "strongly disagree" with the jury's decision and:
"It doesn't change the fact that more than 20 of Ward Churchill's faculty peers on three separate panels unanimously found he engaged in deliberate and repeated plagiarism, falsification and fabrication that fall below the minimum standards of professional conduct."
Neither, however, does any of that change the fact that Churchill has a right to say what he likes even when what he says is wrong, especially when he is speaking about government.
Benson knows that; and his attorneys at CU certainly knew that. Former Gov. Bill Owens should have known it, too, when he called on CU to fire Churchill.
You can forgive Owens, though, for not remembering it now. Now, judging from his statement, Owens believes First Amendment rights should be adjudicated on the basis of one's personality rather than on one's constitutional freedoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)