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.
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?