Ward Churchill: Academic Fraud

It's official, the University of Hawaii's favorite American hating moonbat is a liar and a fraud. The University of Colorado has just released the results (PDF format) of its investigation of the allegations of Churchill's academic fraud and plagiarism. The report is 125 pages long. However, Inside Higher Education has a write up on the findings:

While the panel was unanimous in its findings about Churchill’s conduct, it was divided about whether he should lose his tenured position as professor....

Among the violations that the committee found Churchill had committed were falsification, fabrication, plagiarism, failure to comply with established standard regarding author names on publications, and a “serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research.” The committee also found that Churchill “was disrespectful of Indian oral traditions” in his writings about an 1837 smallpox epidemic.

PirateBallerina, your one stop shop for all things W.C., provides this quote from the summary of the report:

While we are unanimous in finding that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is serious and that we should express the degree of that seriousness through a recommendation about sanctions, our discussions have not led to unanimity about what particular sanctions are warranted. What follows, then, is the only portion of our report that presents multiple views.

Three members of the Committee believe that Professor Churchill’s research misconduct is so serious that it satisfies the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal specified in section 5.C.1 of the Laws of the Regents, and hence that revocation of tenure and dismissal, after completion of all appropriate procedures, is not an improper sanction.

The Committee observes also that the allegations we were asked to investigate were initiated in the wake of the public outcry concerning some highly controversial essays by Professor Churchill dealing with, among other things, the 9/11 tragedy. While not endorsing either the tone or the contents of those essays, the Committee reaffirms, as the University has already acknowledged, that Professor Churchill’s right to publish his views was protected by both the First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of free speech. Although those essays played no part in our deliberations, the Committee expresses its concern regarding the timing and perhaps the motives for the University's decision to forward charges made in that context. We point out finally that when Professor Churchill was hired as an Associate Professor with tenure in 1991 and promoted to (full) Professor in 1997, the University knew that he did not have a Ph.D. or law degree, as commonly expected for faculty at this institution, and was aware that he was a controversial public intellectual.

The Committee's own report demonstrates that the juxtaposition of "Ward Churchill" with "intellectual" is farce. It will be interesting to see if this "controversial public" fraud gets the same treatment as students committing similiar academic violations.

Crossposted at The Dougout.