7. March 2005: When It Leaks, It PoursWith so many details from the grand jury report making their way to reporters' desks, it was inevitable that the entire document would eventually turn up -- and Channel 9 was the lucky winner of the leakers' lotto. The station based a February 28 CU package on the report and gave a copy to their partners at the Denver Post. As expected, the jurors were highly critical of Hoffman, Barnett, Tharp and Byyny, which helps explain why university types had lobbied so strenuously to have the report sealed in the first place. But the buffaloes were out of their pen, and it was too late to close the gate.
Michael Byram, president and CEO of the CU Foundation, a non-profit organization that raises private funds for the university and had been given particular scrutiny by the grand jury, didn't care. On March 2, he informed the populace that the foundation was suing Channel 9 and reporter Paula Woodward for defamation. 'The lawsuit asserts that Ms. Woodward selectively chose excerpts from the leaked report and manipulated the order of words in accusing the CU Foundation of 'malfeasance,' which she defined to be an 'illegal act,'' Byram maintained, adding, 'We expect the media to quote accurately and take responsibility for misstatements or manipulation of fact.'
Nathan Santistevan
Nathan Santistevan
Related Content
More About
The foundation's suit hit at the least opportune moment; it made Byram seem more concerned that CU had been caught with its pants down than he was with why the belt had been loosened in the first place. Perhaps that's why the foundation quietly dropped its complaint against Channel 9 on March 23 -- three weeks later, and lots of dollars short.
8. March 2005: A Not-So-Capitol IdeaOn the same day that the CU Foundation ballyhooed its lawsuit against Channel 9, Byram joined President Hoffman at the State Capitol for what was billed as an aggressive defense of the university. The notion may have looked good on paper, but it was a fiasco in execution. Hoffman invited questions during the press conference, and when those that greeted her were edgy and difficult, she grew flustered and fled, her hurried departure captured by a slew of television cameras.
If Hoffman had initially been eager for her close-up, she quickly lost the desire. She resigned on March 7, saying, 'It appears to me it is in the university's best interest that I remove the issue of my future from the debate so that nothing inhibits CU's ability to successfully create the bright future it so deserves.'
If only it were that simple.
9. March 2005: Ancestor WorshipThanks to bloviators such as Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, the Ward Churchill affair became news from coast to coast -- and had placekicker Hnida's performance been as powerful as CU's knee-jerk reactions, Coach Barnett would have showered her with praise.
On March 24, for example, interim chancellor DiStefano had to admit that Churchill couldn't be sacked for his 9/11 remark, because of a little obstacle known as free speech. To compensate, he came up with a whole bunch of other accusations for a standing committee charged with researching bad faculty behavior to investigate. Plagiarism and fraud were the biggies, but also making the roster was the question of whether Churchill is actually a Native American, as he has long held.
This last subject is a ticklish one. In 1994, Clyde and Vernon Bellecourt, representatives of the national American Indian Movement, had asked CU to explore Churchill's family background, under the theory that he'd falsely earned tenure by claiming to be someone he isn't. At the time, university types brushed off the Bellecourts by saying that it recognized "self-identification" in regard to ethnicity -- and because Churchill said he was a Native American, that was good enough for the university. By flip-flopping ten years later, CU may have provided Churchill with all the ammunition he needs to fire back legally should the school ever let him go.
And giving ammunition to Churchill is never a good idea.
10. June 2005: Inflated OpinionsAfter living in a state of siege for well over a year, CU desperately needed the support of its student body. And what better way to get it than to jack up costs? On June 3, CU regents voted to raise tuition between 9 and 28 percent for in-state students.
The fiscal focus on Colorado natives was reportedly motivated by the sense that out-of-state tuition was as high as the market could bear. Unspoken was the assumption that the hits to CU's reputation had also reduced the perceived value of a degree from that institution. With parents living in far-flung regions already having more than enough reasons not to send their teenage girls, in particular, to the Sodom known as Boulder, why add radically higher prices to the mix?
A November 2004 study projected that non-resident enrollment at CU in fall 2005 would decline by a hefty 20 percent. CU spokeswoman Pauline Hale says hard numbers won't be tabulated until later this month, but she predicts that the actual dip will be less than half that total.
If the difference was made up by wannabe linebackers who think cheerleaders are included in their scholarships, interim president Brown will have his work cut out for him.
