Bogosity ramified

Saying it is full of errors and omissions, nine academics, including seven CU professors, have demanded retraction of the school's report on Ward Churchill's research misconduct and threatened charges against the investigative committee that issued the report, according to the Denver Post.

The Daily Camera has the profs' specific allegations, but as PB (from whom I got the story) points out, they charge for their stories after a while, so he has a copy.

Here's where one would normally say, "I question the timing," but there's no question at all: that the profs didn't make these charges at any point in the investigative process where, if true, they might have affected the outcome, betrays their knowledge of the charges' lack of substance. This is just another delaying and obfuscatory tactic on the part of Churchill's brains trust (aka the Dune Buggy Attack Battalion).

Update: A commenter at the Post's story links to a Frontpage piece on CU Prof Tom Mayer I hadn't seen before, but the link is messed up, so here it is. Nothing new for connoisseurs, probably, but informative.

Update II: Where the hell is the flyer announcing the time and place of the Churchillian National Emergency Forum supposedly "happening" at CU on Saturday? I'm a busy professional and need to plan my day.

Update III: The Rocky doesn't seem to have the story, so at least I beat them. They do, however, have the complaint filed against the randy judge and the young prosecutor.

Update IV: The Colorado Conference of the American Association of University Professors sticks its tiny boot in (pdf):

In light of [today's charges by the professors] we believe that the request that the Report be rescinded . . . should be taken seriously. As outlined in the faculty letter, the flaws in the Report are so serious that no legitimate action can be taken on the basis of the information contained therein.

If the Report is not rescinded, it is incumbent upon the University of Colorado to ensure that the Cheyfitz evidence is thoroughly examined for its validity and its mpact on the original Report. The integrity of scholarly practice and the procedures
governing reviews, due process, academic freedom and faculty governance at CU require that this examination be done by an independent, qualified, and unbiased panel, not by the investigating committee that made the apparent mistakes in the first place. Further, no action should be taken on the basis of the Report until this examination is completed.

(via the humorists at the Ward Churchill Solidarity Network)

Update V: The AAUP has been both clueless and partisan on the Churchill case at every level.

Update VI: Commenters at PB are having fun pointing out that one of the authors the profs cite as backing up Churchill's "blood quantum" argument (too late to explain) relies solely on an article Churchill ghostwrote for his then-wife. They're also noting certain, er, similarities of language among various scholars as well.