RA, I�m pretty sure that Churchill�s a registered republican.

And just where the @#$!! do you get that?

RA, I'm pretty sure that Churchill's a registered republican. Please don't give those "American hating left-wing scumbags" ammunition against you by getting the facts wrong.

Via the Chronicle of Higher Education: The Ward Churchill Verdict
Ward Churchill committed multiple, “deliberate” acts of academic misconduct, according to a review by a faculty panel…
[…]
While the panel was unanimous in its findin...

Let the Churchhills and the ACLU pay for their own platforms to subvert our country. The taxpayer want them out, they should be thrown out of the government trough.

Those worried about "witch hunts" are ACLU idiots.

I do appreciate that innocents can get caught up in the whirlwind. But Salem seens to have been the last significant episode of mass murder of the innocents as a result of a witch hunt.

The WWII internment of those of Japanese decent may well have been a witch hunt gone awry, but that error has been publicly admitted (pace Malkin) and restitution to some extent made.

McCarthy's methods may have been reprehensible--and they were--but there certainly were witches hiding among the innocents. Some were caught, some died still unidentified. And yes, some innocents may have been tarred in the process. That, however, doesn't provide an excuse for permitting the "witches" to teach at will.

The law may indeed let a ten guilty men go free rather than imprison one innocent man, but public opinion--and public institutions--don't necessarily need to follow the same guidelines.

If you say we should not reward those who went hunting for Ward because of his views, I can understand the argument. We do not want to encourage witch hunts. But regardless of how his activities came to light, the activities them selves are certainly not something that we should encourage either.

If the committee that hired him, the deans that kept him on and the president of the university were all fired for failing to detect and deal with a charlatan in their midst, I would be satisfied. The message that a witch hunt will not be delivered of a witch even if they find one is sent. The message that failure to do ones duty to keep your own nest clean is also sent.

Serving notice to those who would lie to gain a position in a major university does a service for all of us. Why would we put up with any lying like this?

The whole selective prosecution thing is hooey as well. Not every speeder on the freeway is caught. Sometimes it's just the guys doing 100 mph or the guy in a red sports car. Do they get to plead to the judge that it's selective prosecution?

Churchill is a manipulator. He is a bully. He simply doesn't deserve to be in the position he is in. Prof. Bainbridge's concerns are misplaced since a serious scholar who doesn't lie has nothing to fear.

Volkh has it right: no matter one's field, no matter one's politics, if you step into the spotlight you will attract attention. (That's why you stepped into the spotlight in the first place, no?)

Attracting attention can be good or bad and you need to consider the consequences of that. Had Churchill quietly conducted his various frauds, he'd still be getting away with them. That might have saved his hide, but at what price to the reputation of the institution or, most importantly, to the students who believed what he was professing?

It is not "selective enforcement" to deal with a problem that is screamingly attracting attention. Firemen go first to houses on fire, after someone has sounded an alarm, not houses that might be on fire.

Are you suggesting that some academics would escape sanctions for activities such as Churchill's? If so, on what grounds? Simply because their malfeasance was as yet undetected?