It’s out today. Read it here (PDF file).
Pirate Ballerina, the blog that was central to pushing the story forward, has analysis and points to the bottom line 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.
* Two members of the Committee conclude and recommend that Professor Churchill should not be dismissed. They reach this conclusion because they do not think his conduct so serious as to satisfy the criteria for revocation of tenure and dismissal set forth in section 5.C.1 of the Law of the Regents, because they are troubled by the circumstances under which these allegations have been made, and because they believe that his dismissal would have an adverse effect on other scholars’ ability to conduct their research with due freedom. These two members agree and recommend that the most appropriate sanction, following any required additional procedures as specified by the University’s rules, is a suspension from University employment without pay for a term of two years.
* 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. One of these members believes and recommends that dismissal is the most appropriate sanction; the other two believe and recommend that the most appropriate sanction is suspension from University employment without pay for a term of five years.
Finally, the Committee had the following comments about its report: The Committee notes that the Laws of the Regents of the University of Colorado define “academic freedom” as “the freedom to inquire, discover, publish and teach truth as the faculty member sees it, subject to no control or authority save the control and authority of the rational methods by which truth is established.”
We understand and were careful to distinguish “misconduct in research,” which is addressed by the University of Colorado’s Administrative Policy Statement on Misconduct in Research and Authorship, from the issue of “truth” addressed by the Regents’ Laws’ definition of academic freedom. 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.
An investigation of a professor who likened some Sept. 11 victims to a Nazi found serious cases of misconduct in his academic research, a University of Colorado spokesman said Tuesday.
One member of the five-person investigative committee recommended that ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill be fired, and four recommended he be suspended, university spokesman Barrie Hartman said.
Churchill has denied doing anything wrong. He said earlier Tuesday that he had yet to see the report.
University officials had earlier determined Churchill could not be fired for his comments about the terrorist attacks, but they launched an inquiry into allegations about his research, which included accusations of plagiarism and fabrication.
Related: Churchill’s wife resigns post.
The seditious Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill and MEChA: perfect together
Ward Churchill: bullying claim
Ward Churchill update
Press conference on Ward Churchill
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape
One of Ward Churchill’s ex-wives speaks
Double standards at the University of Colorado
Liveblogging Ward Churchill and Bill Maher
The never-ending Ward Churchill sitcom
University of Colorado faculty members come to the defense of Ward Churchill
Another bizarre twist in the Ward Churchill saga (fake art)
Ward Churchill: Caught on tape advocating terrorism
Eason Jordan, meet Ward Churchill
March 16, 2014 12:43 PM by Doug Powers
October 6, 2012 02:59 PM by Doug Powers
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
Bill Maher’s witch hunt — and the missing context for O’Donnell’s remarks; Update: O’Donnell responds
September 18, 2010 10:55 PM by Michelle Malkin
March 4, 2007 11:15 AM by Michelle Malkin