DENVER -- The Ward Churchill saga isn't over just yet.

The ethnic studies professor on Wednesday presented his case before Chief Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves, asking to be reinstated at the University of Colorado.

"The law gives the court no discretion," said Churchill's lawyer, David Lane. "The First Amendment is what distinguishes this country from every other country on Earth."

The school's lawyers is arguing that Churchill should not be allowed to teach again. University attorney Patrick O'Rourke said "reinstatement would cause harm to the university."

Churchill came under fire after he compared victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to "little Eichmanns," a reference to a Nazi who helped orchestrate the Holocaust. After two years of investigation, Churchill was fired by the Regents at the University of Colorado for academic misconduct.

However, Churchill won a civil case in April and won a right to have a reinstatement hearing.

The hearing concluded at 4:15 p.m. and Naves said he will issue a written ruling early next week.

Read below for the live updates from the courtroom.

4:13 p.m

Evidentiary hearing concludes. Naves said he'll accept written statements from the attorneys by 5 p.m. tomorrow.

2:55 p.m.

Phil DiStefano, Chancellor CU Boulder campus testifies.

He is the chief academic and chief executive officer of the campus.

The Chancellor is not in favor of Churchill's return to the Boulder campus.

“To reinstate when there's been no admission of academic misconduct on his part makes it very troubling to me to have him back on campus," DiStefano said. "By having a faculty member who has violated (academic standards), I think it's going to be very difficult to achieve that level of excellence in the department."

CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke asked DiStefano if he reviewed the findings of the three different academic committees that investigated Churchill's scholarship.

He answered that he had and said, "They got it right."

DiStefano said the faculty might be afraid of future lawsuits if ever asked to take a look at Churchill's scholarship again.

Lane asked, "So you would agree that the majority of your bosses are first Amendment violators?"

Distefano agreed.

"But in my heart of hearts, I never thought free speech was the issue," DiStefano said.

He was asked if anyone had left the school since the jury verdict was rendered in April. DiStefano said he was not aware of any of the roughly 1,100 professors, at any level, leaving the campus as a result.

“We just recruited from UCLA a Hispanic female who has written some controversial pieces who is leaving UCLA to come to the University of Colorado at Boulder," DiStefano said.

DiStefano said he would not have changed a thing about the way the Churchill incident was handled.

"What do you suggest the appropriate action is? Are you suggesting CU gets to skate on this?"

"For committing research misconduct that he has not admitted to, he should be terminated," DiStefano said.

Back in court at 1:40 p.m.

Expected witness list for the defense/CU: Chancellor Phil DiStefano; Todd Gleeson, the Dean of College of Arts and Sciences; and Richard Jessor -- head of the Institute for Behavioral Sciences.

Todd Gleeson testifies.

Todd Gleeson is a physiology professor and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences with 38 departments within it, including ethnic studies.

Allowing him back devalues the degrees students pursue, Gleeson said.

"It makes it very difficult to uphold standards of integrity. We have an honor code at the college that holds (students) to high academic standards of integrity. They pledge to refrain from plagiarism. It puts us in somewhat of an awkward situation when we have a faculty member who's exempt (from them)," Gleeson said.

Gleeson testified that the school uses tenure review every five years and said that in that review, if they again found Churchill engaged in academic misconduct, and wanted to fire or discipline him, he would be concerned the school could face another lawsuit.

"Faculty would be hesitant to agree to serve on that type of committee," Gleeson said. "It could have a chilling effect on faculty groups bringing those allegations forward."

All of his departments are operating under a five percent budget cut.

“The fact is that the absence of Ward Churchill has had a positive effect on our ability to fill that department," Gleeson said. "Scholars publishing from the department could feel that their reputation is jeopardized, their career is jeopardized."

When asked if reinstating Churchill would make it harder to hire new faculty members, Gleeson said yes.

"We compete nationally for faculty. We would likely lose our top 2 or 3 choices. We might be unsuccessful filling the positions," Gleeson said.

Gleeson also said ethnic studies students leaving CU after graduation to pursue graduate studies elsewhere might find that Churchill's presence on campus "would not be to their advantage."

11:20 a.m.

Ward Churchill takes the stand.

He is asked why he filed the civil suit.

"Primarily as a matter of principle to preserve the concept of academic freedom," Churchill said. "(I did this) to obtain justice, restitution. Were this to stand, were I not to have challenged it for starters, the point would've been made that faculty serve for political powers that be."

"What message do you want to send here and abroad?" Lane asks.

"That in this country, and in institutions of this country, you are free of politically imposed jeopardy for voicing the truth as you know it," Churchill said.

His attorney David Lane said, "Some have said that all you wanted was the money. Will you comment to the court on that?"

Churchill said he never wanted money but reinstatement.

As to questions about him possibly creating a disturbance if he returned to the Boulder campus, Lane asked if he ever has to interact with the Regents.

"Never," Churchill said.

"Are you going to sue them if they (the administration at CU) look at you cross eyed?" Lane asked.

"The issue is whether they can continue to do professional assessments. It's a two-way street," Churchill said.

"Would it be fair to say that you invite confrontation?" Lane asks.

"No, it would be fair to say, in my estimation, I invite or solicit engagement critical engagement. Think about it," Churchill said.

He went on to explain that throughout his teaching career, dating back to the 1970s, he has not been considered a distraction.

"Essentially, what you're going to find are rave reviews," Churchill said. "I have no history of being non-collegial or disruptive of the process."

"Are worried that they will continue to retaliate against you, or are you willing to tolerate the risk?" Lane said.

"I will stand up for my rights, which is to say, the law," Churchill said.

He also said he has worked five months without pay at the school.

"I value fostering critical thinking skills in young people. Others did that for me. It changed my life," Churchill said.

Lane talked about estimates by an economist on how much the termination was worth to him. Churchill answered by saying he never filed any motion to the court asking for any of that money back.

Churchill is questioned by CU's Patrick O’Rourke.

"You don't need to be reinstated to prove your Constitutional rights were violated, do you?" O’Rourke asked.

"I believe I do," Churchill said.

He was asked if he respects the chancellor. He said he does.

O'Rourke asked if Churchill had ever filed complaints against others.

Through questions and answers, Churchill admitted he did file complaints against members of the on-campus groups that investigated him.

Attorney David Lane asks Churchill what result he wants if he is reinstated.

"I’m not looking for exceptionally special privileges or treatment, OK, any more than I'm anticipating that I will simply accept being retaliated against for my presence. If we return to the status quo there would be no reason for legal intervention that I can see at all," Churchill said.

10:05 a.m.

Sociology Professor Thomas Mayer is cross-examined by CU attorney Patrick O'Rourke.

Mayer calls Churchill one of the more brilliant people he's come across at the school.

"I've called this a 'gross violation' of academic freedom. And I wrote a poem about that," Mayer said.

"You're aware that many of your colleagues feel he has breached the trust given him as an instructor at the school?" O’Rourke asked.

"I am not aware of that," Mayer said.

Mayer said he's noticed "a tendency of government and people in power to try to quell speech ... in a time of crisis."

Mayer said he has "encountered hostilities for defending Ward. It works as an internal intimidation. Some are afraid to defend Ward as energetically as I have."

"It's a matter of self-censorship. You're talking to a refugee of Nazi Germany. And that was primarily a matter of self-censorship. I don't think that's the way the administration wants it. But that's the way it works at the University of Colorado. People are worried they won't get tenure. But it does happen. It's a very natural response," Mayer said.

This answer was stricken from the record upon objection by O’Rourke.

10:00 a.m.

Sociology Professor, Thomas Mayer, is the second witness for the plaintiffs.

He has worked at this school located in Bolder, Colo. for 40 years.

Mayer said he doesn't always agree with Churchill but believes he is critical to the encouragement of critical thinking at CU Boulder. The following are quotes from Mayer.

"The University of Colorado would be a lot greater if Ward Churchill returns than it would be if he is not reinstated," Mayer said.

"The attack upon Ward Churchill is, in its own way, an attack upon academic freedoms. ... The faculty people I speak with eagerly want Ward back and feel it will be a more interesting, challenging place if he returns. He makes students think. He made me think in a way I otherwise would not have had I not met him."

9 a.m.

Emma Perez, the new chairwoman of the ethnic studies department at CU Boulder, was first to testify.

She testified by phone.

She is the first witness called by the plaintiffs.

"We need a full professor for guidance. That would be Ward. He's the only one left," Perez said. "Keep in mind, we're a small department. ... In the academy, throughout the nation, people see Ward as a hero. People who are potentially PhD students are constantly asking, 'Will Ward be back? Will we be able to work with him?' They line up. and his classes usually have a wait list of student waiting to get in."

When asked about the lawsuit, Perez said, "Quite frankly, I don't think that many people are interested in it around campus. They're just so busy with their own work."

"People around the nation see him as a founder of ethnic studies. He has always followed the (scholarship) rules of the university. And he was wrongly fired," Perez said.

She was asked how difficult it would be to reinstate him.

"We'll set him up immediately. Two classes of his -- Racist Ideology and the American Holocaust. The sooner the better given that we've got most of the fall schedule set up. He's very charming and witty and has a relaxed vigilance about him. He helped to found American Indian studies. So I'm not sure where they get the idea it would taint our department when, in fact, it would esteem our department.

"He is a stellar scholar. He is a scholar who continues to be well respected. The irony of this whole case is (that) he's received that much more respect among academicians around the nation."