Some thoughts on Chief Minniehawhaw, and the potential implications for cleaning up the ongoing fraud and abuse of the left in academia.

Churchill's firing doesn't spell the beginning of the end for professors who abuse their positions, but it was a good day in Denver.

Unfortunately, I suspect that he will be paraded by the so-called progressives as a martyr for freedom of speech, and many will foolishly continue to buy it.

The Pirate Ballerina also has a roundup of links about Chief Lies-a-Lot, with a picture of a drum-beating ceremony.

The vote to rid themselves of this moron was 8 -1. The single dissenting vote said he knew that Churchill had lied and plagarized, but that he didn't think it was a seriousness enough offense to be fired over.

That's what passes for critical thinking in the running of out universities.

Nice to see Professor Verybigliar getting his comeuppance.

The single dissenting vote said he knew that Churchill had lied and plagarized, but that he didn't think it was a seriousness enough offense to be fired over.

Probably "teaches" government or some other "social studies" course.

Some more thoughts on this. Churchill's lawyer said that Colorado politicians and the public were so outraged by his 9/11 statements that there was no way his scholarship could be fairly evaluated. That's an interesting position to take, and one that is widely enjoyed by a lot of professional controversialists: "I'm so threatening that you'll say I'm full of crap whether or not I actually am; therefore, your criticisms carry no weight." It turns on its head Sagan's dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The more outrageous the claim, the less we are entitled to examine it. To me, this is the fundamental distinction between academic fields that create progress (science, engineering) and those that don't (literary criticism, sociology).

Of course, he will sue.

It's interesting to see Churchill's defenders in the blogosphere.

The most common one is the sort who now provides a list of right-wing academics, and ask why they still have teaching positions. Interestingly, some are fascists, eugenics-supporters, etc.

Thus, we see an explicit move on the part of some Churchill supporters to punish academics for their views.

(Let me note here: Show academics who've engaged in fraud, plagiarism, making up quotes, etc., and they should be canned, whatever their politics.)

The other sort are those who believe that Churchill did nothing wrong. Thus, at Ed Morrissey's, we see one person arguing that, given the "hundreds" of books and articles that Churchill had written, a few misquotes and minor slips were inevitable. This echoes Steve's point above.

It's worth reading the investigating committee's report, to see just how flawed Churchill was as an academic---much of which predates 9-11.

The key comment from the CU President was this:

Any student engaging in such a wide range of academic misconduct would be seriously sanctioned. We should hold our faculty to a high standard of professionalism.

How many students are allowed to get away with what this Professor did? Are students only expelled for two years, and then allowed to return (such as the dissenter suggested with 2 years unpaid leave)?

LO has it exactly right, ANYONE who is guilty of the sort of malfeasence that Churchill is should be dealt with (i.e. fired...) whatever their politics. There is ample evidence that Churchill has engaged in plagarism, falsifacation of events and people, etc., all of which are clearly unprofessional behavior for a historian.

Were this about his politics, I would happily defend Mr. Churchill's right to be as silly as he wishes to be...but this is something very different indeed.

Were this about his politics, I would happily defend Mr. Churchill's right to be as silly as he wishes to be...but this is something very different indeed.

Even if it were about his statements rather than his plagerism, freedom of speech often has limits in the workplace. If I make outrageous public statements that embarrass my employer, it is quite likely I'll end up looking for a new job. Why should state employees (like public university professors) be exempt from the realities that the rest of us have to face? The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech (except when it's to their benefit such as campaign finance laws, but I digress). Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism or freedom from consequences.

I suggest Churchill made his inflammatory statements because he knew the jig was nearly up with respect to his scholarship.

It's no different than Hugo Chavez grandstanding about the evil US hegemony because the Venezuelan economy is tanking, or Ahmadoofus whatever his name is in Iran or Dear Leader rattlin' their nuclear swords to attract US disapproval because people at home are getting mighty tired of empty shelves.

Whenever the big head thunders and booms outrageously, look for the little man behind the curtain hoping to escape attention.

Larry J, the reason colleges don't punish professors for saying things the college doesn't like has nothing to do with the First Amendment - it's because professors are supposed to seek and state the truth. Colleges should only fire professors if they abuse the "truth machine" via plagiarism, fraud or persistent incompetence, like Churchill did. You seem to be suggesting that a college could fire a guy who was ethical and competent yet wrote papers critical of the college itself. That would be just as damaging to the college's mission as if they had let Churchill keep teaching.

In contrast, if you worked for GM but wrote an article saying cars cause pollution, are dangerous, etc., it could be in GM's interest to fire you. GM exists in order to make money by selling cars. The truth may be a useful tool for making cars, but the truth is not an end in itself for GM. For a college, the truth is supposed to be an end in itself.

(The above comments are the stated or ostensible way things are, and not necessarily how they actually work out in practice.)

Artemus:

As you say, that's how things should be. However, many professors know, for example, that they'd best not criticize the university until after they've obtained tenure.

Even after they obtain tenure, criticizing the university's fund-raising, budgetary priorities, or support (e.g., doing military research in some cases) can lead to significant pressure from the administration.

They can't necessarily fire you, but they can wipe out departments, cut funding, or otherwise make life very difficult.

As an earlier (and more illustrious) Churchill once stated about turning points: "It was not the beginning of the end, but it proved to be the end of the beginning." He was talking about El Alamein. Let's hope it is equally applicable to bad profs.

it's because professors are supposed to seek and state the truth.

Perhaps they are, but operationally professors (at least in the sciences and engineering) are supposed to seek out and acquire funding. Few people have any idea how much your average research university budget comes out of grant overhead. At MIT, IIRC, research overhead contributed about 40-50% of the budget. It dwarfs the contribution of tuition, that's for sure.

Does this matter? Well, only to the extent that the popularity-contest aspect of this rat race may stifle research that takes many years to pay off, or which is widely considered unpromising. In his book on the 1918 influenza epidemic, John Barry notes that Oswald Avery, who eventually discovered that DNA was the carrier of genetic information, had a spell of nearly ten years during which he published almost nothing. If that happened today, one's funding -- and ability to do research -- would dry up permanently.

Not saying I have a better idea, necessarily, but it's worth noting that in the modern university-government research complex the pursuit of truth takes a distant second place to the pursuit of grant money.

Carl, I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. If you believe what you read in grant proposals, every project will lead to "fundamental, groundbreaking advances that could revolutionize the field of whatever." But I'll still argue that the situation in engineering is far more honest than what you see in the humanities, where the very concept of objectivity was rejected years ago.

No argument from me, Artemus.