>I'm not advocating any particular punishment for him;
>his reputation is already ruined, and a suspension
>without pay does not strike me as excessive -- and
>given the greater length, breadth, and systematicity
>of WC's misrepresentations compared to B's, would not
As an aside, the "smell of blood will draw more rightwingers" argument is unconvincing. If the university had ignored the charges it was just as likely to have spurred the rightwing to do more than they'd been doing. They're a pretty tenacious crowd.
My reading of the report is that, as Justin noted, the committee took the university itself to task and was, indeed, speaking to the rest of the academy to say that it was precisely that they considered the political motivations and academic freedom issues in their address on "what shold be done". Hence, no one has called for Churchill's removal.
What was interesting to me, on a second reading of the conclusion, is that the comm. wasn't composed only of fac from Colorado. Which makes sense now that I think about it. That's why dissertation procedures and tenure reviews have members from other faculty and it's even possible to have people outside the degree granting university be a member of a diss. committee.
The committee was also only ever in the position to describe "any sanctions". They aren't recommending what should be done. It's unclear what body takes over and decides on sanctions.
They go on to outline the things they agree should be considered when thinking about what sanctions should be levied. Doing so, they point to the importance of academic freedom, emphasizing the duty of the university to protect scholars from both internal and outside interference in academic freedom. Then, they take the university to task for allowing those outside forces to intervene and for hiring Churchill in the first place, noting that Churchill was hired for his polemics and controversial claims. They also note that what they got was someone without a PhD which means they got someone who was unfamiliar with the obligations and privileges bestowed on someone who, as a PhD, is enjoined to contribute to the production of knowledge. They hired him as a tenured professor -- without the typical 6 years of tenure track probation. After 6 years, they rewarded his work in 6 years with Full Professorship.
In short, they said to the university, you gots what you paid for so shut up shuttin' up already. The university fucked up and must bear the burden of their actions. If the university's reputation is called into question, that's the price they pay. IOW, they are telling the university to suck it up and keep Churchill on board because they must bear his presence on campus as a reminder to themselves and every other university why they should never hire anyone like that again.
It's also the price they pay, the report says, because the university didn't respond to the initial complaints and then allowed "outside forces" to interfere with academic freedom.
The section on the media just reads like a big warning to the entire academic community about the changing conditions under which they are working.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org