Let's not make of this anything other than it really is: Churchill's firing had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of his research. It was/is based solely on his politics.
That was the beginning of the "investigation." And that is the end. ----- Original Message ----- From: "raghu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Ward Churchill firing > On 7/30/07, The Buffalo In Da' Midst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cites are a problem of literally global scale. > > > > > I agree improper citations is a frivolous reason for dismissing a > tenure professor. But the article referred to by Hank Brown makes far > more serious allegations. I'd like to see some serious comment on > these rather than a lazy copout about other people's Eurocentric > prejudices. As interesting as the latter may be, it is unsatisfactory > as a defense for Churchill's case. > http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/07/25/churchill > -----------------------------------snip > As the University of Colorado considered what to do, a series of > accusations against Churchill started to come in that involved his > scholarly practices. While Churchill repeatedly has portrayed his > critics as conservatives, a number of those who brought complaints > against him share his fury at the U.S. government's treatment of > Native Americans. The complaints included charges of plagiarism, of > false descriptions of other scholars' work or historical evidence, and > of fabrications. The university first determined that it could not > fire Churchill based on his statements about 9/11, but that it could > investigate the other allegations of misconduct, which it then > proceeded to do. Three separate faculty panels then found Churchill > guilty of multiple instances of research misconduct. > > > -raghu. >
