Skip to comments.
Churchill isn't tip of the iceberg
Boulder Daily Camera ^
| May 28, 2006
| Robert Pasnau
Posted on 05/29/2006 5:11:14 AM PDT by billorites
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: billorites
And the coverup continues.
2
posted on
05/29/2006 5:19:48 AM PDT
by
babydoll22
(If you stop growing as a person you live in your own private hell.)
To: billorites
This guy is full of utter
scheiss unsin. Of course he can find nothing wrong with the educrats who looked over Churchill's falsehood and idiocy, he is one of those idiots himself and when they give a Conservative student an "f" for a paper he turns stating Pres. Bush is not a war criminal or find professors shouting a pro Israeli student down and, then, charging such a student with assault (the last is a hypothetical, but things like that go on in there), there's no problem to be had.
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.
3
posted on
05/29/2006 5:24:20 AM PDT
by
Stepan12
To: billorites
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.
To: Stepan12
professors shouting a pro Israeli student down and, then, charging such a student with assault (the last is a hypothetical, but things like that go on in there) 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
5
posted on
05/29/2006 5:30:08 AM PDT
by
APFel
(Individualism. The alpha and the omega.)
To: babydoll22
Because "the fish rots from the head" (MA Gov. Dukakis)
University of Colorado should lose its accreditation
by reputation and in fact, for doing nothing.
6
posted on
05/29/2006 5:30:39 AM PDT
by
Diogenesis
(Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: billorites
Ethics? Do I hear the sweet song of Ethics?
7
posted on
05/29/2006 5:32:09 AM PDT
by
Socratic
("I'll have the roast duck with the mango salsa.")
To: APFel
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. 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.
8
posted on
05/29/2006 5:35:06 AM PDT
by
Stepan12
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: billorites
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.
10
posted on
05/29/2006 6:11:32 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: Baynative
Is Churchill scheduled to teach any classes in the fall term ?
To: Stepan12
"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."Yeah, right. And before this investigation started, I'd bet he would have said the same about Churchill.
To: billorites
13
posted on
05/29/2006 6:39:53 AM PDT
by
flixxx
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Why is Professor Pasanau "unpersuasive?" This is his conclusion:
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?
To: robertpaulsen
Yeah, right. And before this investigation started, I'd bet he would have said the same about ChurchillMaybe he has a bridge in Brooklyn to sell us or a promise from him to help blow one up in the name of the revolution. They're all in their little bubble with no outside criticism allowed and criticism from students would result in a failing grade for them or even worse. With such a paucity of intellectual diversity, no wonder they think they're so great.
15
posted on
05/29/2006 6:53:52 AM PDT
by
Stepan12
To: robertpaulsen
Yeah, right. And before this investigation started, I'd bet he would have said the same about Churchill.
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.
To: libstripper
Yes,
after he learned of Churchill's misconduct, he was suitably outraged. But he's assuring us in this article that this is an isolated incident.
Well, I'm not assured. And I stated the reason.
To: robertpaulsen
I agree with your point that such academic fraud is probably less isolated than he states. See Arming America. However, I give him a lot of credit for being fair enough to have read the report, digested it, and concluded that the proven charged against Churchill merit nothing less than Churchill's firing. Altogether too many liberal academic types would try, instead, to make excuses for Churchill; this man didn't and I praise him for it.
To: libstripper
He's unpersuasive because he's characterizing the leprous sore that's too fulsome to hide as an aberration on an otherwise healthy body, "not the tip of the iceberg".
When these things break into public view, and the suckers are in danger of learning about the con ("pay no attention to that man behind the curtain") we hear about how this is merely an aberration, like Dan Rather assuring us that he has rock solid "journalistic" reasons to believe a story.
The fact that Churchill got as far as he did, seems to be strong prima facie evidence of a systematic lack of rigor or seriousness. His argument is, "gee, if we looked into this guy at all we'd know he's a fraud." He is NOT arguing that the entire department (or school) needs a thorough vetting and reevaluation, nor is he claiming that "scholars" are regularly subjected to this kind of review, in the course of their work. It is only when one of them breaks cover and becomes controversial that this kind of chicanery is exposed.
The lesson to academics is, be a little more subtle in your indoctrination and propagandizing, or you'll give the game away. Con men know the best game is one were the mark never knows he's been had, as anyone who's watched the Rockford Files knows.
19
posted on
05/29/2006 7:12:59 AM PDT
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake But Accurate, Experts Say.')
To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Thanks for your clarification. I agree with your points.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson