University of Colorado should lose its accreditation
by reputation and in fact, for doing nothing.
Posted on 05/29/2006 5:11:14 AM PDT by billorites
Since the investigative report released earlier this month on the Churchill affair, little has been heard from University of Colorado faculty. This is understandable, since the whole affair is such a quagmire, but still the silence is unfortunate, since no one is so well placed to judge the matter. I hope these remarks will provide some helpful context.
A careful reading of the investigative report (available on CU's Web site) shows the committee to have discharged its duty with tremendous care for the many nuances of the case, scholarly and political. Ironically, however, the very care taken in the report, which runs to over 100 pages, may have kept the full seriousness of the charges from being fully appreciated.
In short, the committee found two cases where Churchill extensively plagiarized the work of others. They found other cases where he first wrote articles under a false name, and then in a later work cited those earlier articles as providing independent confirmation for his own claims.
They found a great many places where apparently detailed footnotes turned out on close inspection to offer no support whatsoever for the claims being made, and found that Churchill continued to stick with these false sources in later work even after being confronted in print with their inadequacy.
Assessing the cumulative impact of these tactics, the committee describes "a pattern and consistent research stratagem to cloak extreme, unsupportable, propaganda-like claims of fact that support Professor Churchill's legal and political claims with the aura of authentic scholarly research by referencing apparently (but not actually) supportive independent third-party sources."
The fact that this disparate group of highly distinguished scholars could reach its verdict with complete unanimity — save for the final, delicate question of what sanction to impose — should give one a great deal of confidence in their verdict. No such confidence can be taken from Churchill's own statement (available on the Camera's Web site). A careful reading of the original report, next to his response, shows him to have misstated and ignored the committee's findings at every stage. Indeed, one might almost laugh at the way his slipshod responses re-enact the very sorts of intellectual failings that the report originally highlighted.
One might laugh, that is, if the whole affair were not so depressing. Perhaps its most unfortunate aspect, beyond the immediate and very serious damage to CU, is the impression it seems to have left in some quarters that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Here my own experience is relevant. In the course of my duties evaluating the work of my colleagues, I have never encountered a single instance of fraud or misconduct, or even the bare allegation of such. Additionally, in all of the graduate seminars I have conducted, and dissertations I have read, I have never seen anything even remotely resembling this sort of conduct. Furthermore, over many years of evaluating thousands of job applicants, reviewing their qualifications with the greatest care, I have never seen or heard of even the shadow of this sort of behavior. Finally, in all my years of scholarly research, over the countless articles and books that I have read, I have never encountered anything of this kind.
Happily, it does not fall upon me to decide what sort of penalty is appropriate in this case. But were such misconduct discovered among my own faculty, or in my own field at large, I would be the first to seek that person's dismissal.
Robert Pasnau is professor in and chair of CU/Boulder's Department of Philosophy.
And the coverup continues.
These professors hate America and like the Communists in America they don't tell the truth of what they're doing. Btw... In Britain it's different. Communists always confess to what they are in Britain as opposed to denying it in America; e.g., Alger Hiss.
Huh? Either this guy is lying or this guy is...lying. Churchill differs from others in similar professorial positions only in that he got caught.
Funny you should say this, even as a hypothetical. At my college a few years ago, a professor attacked a student for taking her picture near a Republican backed pro Israeli display set up in the student common. The reason? She said her photograph near the display would insinuate an endorsement of the display.
What she was actually doing there... well, she was verbally badgering the conservatives who put on the display.
APf
Ethics? Do I hear the sweet song of Ethics?
Most interesting. Charles Krauthammer said that academia is becoming increasingly irrelevant due to it's unrealistic, Leftist pronoucements. A pro American, Conservative type would have a hard time getting tenure or a professorship. That's why there are think tanks to give bright people on the right a place to go. And they do influence public policy a little.
Professor Pasnau is unpersuasive. At best it's a matter of degree. I suppose he's never hear of Professor Bellesiles, whose "research" was cited in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a court whose rulings have the cachet of infallibility when they support "progressive" doctrine.
Is Churchill scheduled to teach any classes in the fall term ?
Yeah, right. And before this investigation started, I'd bet he would have said the same about Churchill.
Here is the URL to the actual reports by the committee at the University of Colorado.
http://www.colorado.edu/news/reports/churchill/churchillreport051606.html
Here my own experience is relevant. In the course of my duties evaluating the work of my colleagues, I have never encountered a single instance [like the repeated Churchill incidents] of fraud or misconduct, or even the bare allegation of such. Additionally, in all of the graduate seminars I have conducted, and dissertations I have read, I have never seen anything even remotely resembling this sort of conduct. Furthermore, over many years of evaluating thousands of job applicants, reviewing their qualifications with the greatest care, I have never seen or heard of even the shadow of this sort of behavior. Finally, in all my years of scholarly research, over the countless articles and books that I have read, I have never encountered anything of this kind.
Happily, it does not fall upon me to decide what sort of penalty is appropriate in this case. But were such misconduct discovered among my own faculty, or in my own field at large, I would be the first to seek that person's dismissal.
The bolded part says it about as strongly as anyone can. Indeed, he's saying what happened to Bellesiles with the fraudulent Arming America, which involved the same kind of gross misconduct and Bellesiles being forced to resign his professorship at Emory University, ought to happen to Churchill. By the way, which USSC case cited Arming America and what did the Court say about it?
I'd see no problem with him taking such a view before the investigation started. After all, a person who is confronted with charges as serious as those made against Churchill is entitled to an initial presumption of innocence and that those making the charges be required to prove them, a presumption of innocence Larry Summers was never given by the Harvard Harpies. The important thing here is that Professor Passau looked that the full evidence after it was all in and concluded that he's never seen such horrible academic misconduct as what's been proved against Churchill and Churchill should be dismissed because of it. In other words, Passau has done an intellectually responsible job of judging the case and has judged it right.
Well, I'm not assured. And I stated the reason.
Thanks for your clarification. I agree with your points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.