Unfortunately, given limitations of time, I cannot produce a digest of the various reports, and I am worried about leaving out seemingly small but potentially very significant details in condensing other reports.

Day 11 (Monday, 23 March, 2009) saw Ward Churchill take the stand in his own defense, preceded by at least three other witnesses. A very short report of Churchill’s testimony was produced by ABC Channel 7 News in Denver:

the following is from the CBS affiliate in Denver, for the same date:

Channel 7 also wrote about this news in, “Churchill Takes Stand In Civil Suit.” Also see,

“Fired prof takes the stand: Fights to regain his post.” By Kevin Vaughan, The Denver Post, 24 March, 2009.

For more local news coverage of the trial, see:

• The Denver Post — articles on the Churchill Trial
• 9 News — articles on the Churchill Trial
• 9 News — videos of the Churchill Trial
  
• CBS 4 Denver — videos and articles on the Churchill Trial

See especially:

Ward Churchill takes the stand to defend himself: Axed CU professor gives jury his version of events. By John Aguilar, The Daily Camera, Monday, March 23, 2009

CHURCHILL TRIAL BLOG: Prof defends himself against allegations one by one. By John Aguilar, The Daily Camera, Monday, March 23, 2009

Churchill v. University of Colorado: The Man Himself. The Race to the Bottom. 23 March 2009

Churchill v. University of Colorado: Monday, March 23, 2009 – Morning Session. The Race to the Bottom. 23 March 2009.

••••••• ••••••• •••••••

My favourite extracts of the day were these (source):

[David] Lane [Ward Churchill’s attorney] also questioned Churchill at some length about his 9/11 essay. Churchill described the essay as an attempt to explain the simple proposition that the terrorist attacks were a predictable result of U.S. foreign policy. In his testimony Churchill familiarized this idea by referencing phrases like “chicken coming home to roost,” from Malcolm X, “as you sow, so shall you reap,” and “what goes around comes around.” He explained that in writing the essay he was not espousing or endorsing a pro-terrorist stance, but was merely trying to apply the mainstream American response instead to the “other side,” saying that it could probably serve as an indicator of how U.S. action is received in other parts of the world.

…

In a discussion of the Fort Clark small pox epidemic, Churchill stated that he believed that the idea that the U.S. Army had intentionally inflicted American Indians with small pox was so widely known and accepted that he didn’t need to cite it. To that effect, plaintiff’s attorney offered into evidence middle school and high school texts making the same or similar points.