Getting him on "infractions of scholarship rules"?? Sort of like getting him for tax evasion??
Getting him on "infractions of scholarship rules"?? Sort of like getting him for tax evasion??""
They still got him and did the right thing.
Now we all have to make sure he NEVER finds work again as a "professor".
Nope. They are nailing him for plagairism and for publishing conclusions without sufficient scholarly evidence to back it up. Entirely appropriate for a university. His political opinions don't enter into it.
That's about the only thing that can cause the dismissal of a tenured professor.
Hey, that got Capone sent to Alcatraz.......
Yes.
Nope. It's the only thing he did wrong. His political opinions and expressions don't excuse his shoddy academic record.
Nope. For an academic, you can hold whatever moonbat position you want, and essentially no one cares. However, there is one and ONLY one unforgivable sin in academia, and that's plagiarism (in any of its various forms.) Academic types live and die by their publications, so plagiarism literally takes money from their pockets.
I predicted last year that if anything happened to Ward Churchill, it would be because of his plagiarism, not due to his opinions.
I read the final report, all 125 pages of it. It was extremely interesting.
Here's a link:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/download/WardChurchillReport.pdf
No matter what you think of the people there, I thought the report was very well done and fair. I don't think it would be possible to argue against its conclusions as written.
Essentially, the report says that Churchill made up many of his references and misrepresented many others. He would write a paper and have one of his students publish it under their name. Then he would refer to the paper in one of his own writings as a reference to back up his work.
He was caught because he was accused of plaguarizing one of the works allegedly "written" by a student. To get out of that charge, he had to admit that he had written the original work and was therefore copying himself.
But then they found out he also cited that work, to bolster his completely off the wall claims.
From the point of view of an academic, what he did is absolutely the worst sin you can be condemned of, much worse than having strange opinions about 9/11 or anything else.
It's particularly disquieting since, as the report said, it seems clear that he would have gotten completely away with it, beause few actually analyze the works of others in any depth, especially in the rather lax ethnic studies fields. The reason he's on the hot seat is that people found out about the outrageous 9/11 article and then started digging to see if they could find anything they could condemn him with.
The upshot is that now we know Ward Churchill is a phony and a fraud, thanks to people who were angered by the 9/11 article. Now the academics are embarassed that they have found this kind of problem because of conservatives. What other phonies and frauds might be lurking in the groves of academe?
Nobody knows, and that could be embarassing. Worse, even, than Ward Churchill who was always known as a bit of a loose cannon.
D