Via the Rocky Mountain News: CU panel: Fire prof

A majority of the University of Colorado committee looking into charges of research misconduct against Ward Churchill said Tuesday that the ethnic studies professor should be fired.

The panel - made up of nine CU faculty, a staff member and a graduate student - agreed unanimously with an investigative committee’s earlier findings that Churchill “has committed serious, repeated and deliberate research misconduct,” including plagiarism and fabrication of material.

While have defended Churchill’s academic freedom, and do not think he should be fired for his rantings about 911, as I have said before, there is no doubt in my mind that he should be fired for these two egregious academic offenses. No professor caught systematically plagiarizing and making up research should keep their job. There is no excuse for it, and I find it disappointing that the vote for dismissal wasn’t unanimous.

Of course, all nine voted for serious sanctions:

Of the nine members who cast secret ballots, six recommended dismissal. Two said he should be suspended without pay for five years, while one suggested a two-year suspension without pay.

And you have to love this:

“This is but the latest volley in a national, indeed international, campaign to discredit those who think critically and who bring alternative perspectives to their research,” Churchill wrote last month in a response to the investigative committee, which also recommended he be fired or suspended without pay.

Who knew that stealing the ideas (and images) of others, not to mention just making stuff up, is the same thing as critical thinking and the bringing of alternative perspectives. I have had some students who would have loved to have known that.

I also found this guffaw-worthy:

The panel’s report was the latest “rubber stamp” in the university’s ongoing march toward firing Churchill, Lane added. He also reiterated earlier statements that Churchill will sue CU in federal court “when,” not if, he is fired.

“Not only was (the report) totally predictable, it was totally predicted,” Lane said.

Well, yes: when the evidence in overwhelming and largely known to the public, the results of the investigation are typically quite predictable. The results of the Enron trial where pretty predictable as well.

Some items from the report:

“We are drawn to the irresistible conclusion that Professor Churchill is unable, or at least unwilling, to acknowledge legitimate critique,” the report states. “If he is unwilling to acknowledge critiques, we are pessimistic that he is likely to change his behavior.”

[…]

“The (committee) acknowledges that any scholar can make an occasional mistake, particularly when producing the volume of writing that Professor Churchill claims . . . We are forced to conclude, as did the Investigative Committee, that this is not a case of ‘ordinary error,’ but a pattern of repeated, intentional misrepresentation,” they wrote.

The panel also said Churchill’s misconduct could compromise the work of other scholars, who rely on each other’s writings for their own research. And they said they regret the “erosion of public trust” in CU and academia Churchill’s case has caused.

Some pretty remarkable stuff.